Laravel Testing Decoded

The testing book you’ve been waiting for.

JeffreyWay

This book is for sale at http://leanpub.com/laravel-testing-decoded

This version was published on 2013-05-28

This is a Leanpub book. Leanpub empowers authors and publishers with the Lean Publishing

process. Lean Publishing is the act of publishing an in-progress ebook using lightweight tools and

many iterations to get reader feedback, pivot until you have the right book and build traction once

you do.

Tweet This Book!

Please help JeffreyWay by spreading the word about this book on Twitter!

The suggested tweet for this book is:

Just bought @jeffrey_way’s new book, Laravel Testing Decoded!

The suggested hashtag for this book is #laravelTesting.

Find out what other people are saying about the book by clicking on this link to search for this

hashtag on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search/#laravelTesting

Contents

Welcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

It Has Begun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Is This Book For Me? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Why Laravel-Specific? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How to Consume This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Get in Touch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Into the Great Wide Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1: Test All The Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

You Already Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6 Wins From TDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Big-Boy Pants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Testability Improves Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6. It’s Fun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

What Should I Test? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6 Signs of Untestable Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1. New Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Control-Freak Constructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. And, And, And . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Ways to Spot a Class With Too Many Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. Too Many Paths? Polymorphism to the Rescue! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Too Many Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6. Too Many Bugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Test Jargon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Unit Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Model Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Integration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Functional (Controller) Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CONTENTS

Acceptance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Relax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Making Packages Available Globally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Assertions 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Decoding A Test Class Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

assertTrue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

assertEquals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

assertSame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

assertContains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

assertArrayHasKey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

assertInternalType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

assertInstanceOf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Asserting Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Technicolor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Output Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

XML Configuration File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Continuous Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Watching Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Triggering Multiple Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Some Vim-Specific Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Chapter 4: Making PHPUnit Less Verbose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Importing Assertions as Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Applying the Laravel Style to PHPUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

My Struggles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Unit Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Arrange, Act, Assert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Testing in Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Tests Should Not Be Order-Dependent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Test-Driven Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Behavior-Driven Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Testing Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Slime vs. Generalize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

CONTENTS

Slime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Generalize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Making the Test Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Testing Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Refactoring the Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Refactoring the Production Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Polymorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Mocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Project Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Final Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 6: Testing Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

What to Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Accessors and Mutators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Cat Years Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Password Hashing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Custom Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Validations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Helpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Factories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Laravel Test Helpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Factories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Overrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Test Helpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

assertValid and assertNotValid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Asserting Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Mocking Decoded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

The Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Dependency Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

The Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Simple Mock Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Return Values From Mocked Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Partial Mocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Hamcrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

CONTENTS

Chapter 8: Test Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Test Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Specifying the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Calling Artisan From Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Try It Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Databases in Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Mockery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Mocking Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

What Does a Controller Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3 Steps to Testing Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

The Hello World of Controller Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Overloading is Your Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Calling Controller Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Laravel’s Helper Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Mocking the Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Required Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

The IoC Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Redirections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Updating the Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Crawling the DOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Ensure View Contains Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Basic Traversing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Fetch By Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Fetch First or Last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Fetch Siblings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Fetch Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Capture Text Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter 11: The IoC Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Dependency Injection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Constructor Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

CONTENTS

Setter Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Resolving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Solution 1: Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Solution 2: Resolving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

App Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Example 2: Automatic Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Extra Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Commands 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Scaffolding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Single Responsibility Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Create the Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Generating the Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Testing Artisan Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Dependency Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Generator Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Making the Test Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Testing the Model Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Chapter 13: Testing APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

APIs in Laravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Three Components to Writing an API in Laravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

2. Route Prefixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

3. Return JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Testing APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Use a Database in Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Migrate the Database for Each Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Enable Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Set the Authenticated User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Test Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

User Must Be Authenticated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Check For Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

CONTENTS

Fetch All Photos For the Authenticated User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Refactoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Updating a Photo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Factories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Specifying Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

An Amuse Bouche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Testing Refresher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Acceptance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Global Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Local Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Configuring Acceptance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Generate a Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Manual Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Generator Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Decoding the Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Writing the First Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Running All Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

The Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Translating the Feature for Codeception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Building the Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Authenticating the User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Adding a Test Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Invalid Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

The Laravel4 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

The DB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Updating TestGuy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Registering a User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Hello, Travis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

CONTENTS

1. Connect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

2. Register Hooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

3. Configure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Build Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Absolute Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Turn Off Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Set Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

IRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

1. How Do I Test Global Functions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Mock It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

The Namespacing Trick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

2. How Do I Create a SQL Dump for Codeception Tests? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

3. How Do I Test Protected Methods? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

4. Should I Test Getters and Setters? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

5. Why Is PHPUnit Ignoring My Filters? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

6. Can I Mock a Method in the Class I’m Testing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Traditional Partial Mocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Passive Partial Mocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Goodbye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Wait a Second… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Welcome

I’ve seen it way too many times. As your application grows, so does your sloppy, untested codebase.

Before long, you begin to drown, as your ability to manually test the application becomes unrealistic,

or even impossible! It’s at these specific times, when you begin to realize the down-right necessity

for testing. Sure, you might have read a TDD book in the past, but, like many things in life, we

require real-life experience, before we suddenly - in that wonderful “aha moment” - get it.

The only problem is that testing can be a tricky thing. In fact, it’s quite possible that your codebase,

as it currently stands, is untestable! What you may not realize is that, while, yes, testing does help

to ensure that your code works as expected, following this pattern will also make you a better

developer. That messy, untestable spaghetti code that you might have snuck into your project in the

past will never happen again. Trust me: as soon as you bring the question “how could I test this” to

the forefront of every new piece of code, you’ll, with a smile on your face, look back to your former

self, and laugh at your crazy, cowboy ways.

Welcome to modern software development.

While the principles of testing (and TDD) are language-agnostic, when it comes to

execution, there are a variety of tools and techniques at your finger tips. This book

is as much an introduction to TDD, as it is a deep analysis of the Laravel way of testing

applications.

It Has Begun

When it comes to programming languages, everyone has an opinion. And when the topic of

conversation switches to PHP specifically, well, prepare yourself for the vitriol. Despite the fact

that the language has matured significantly in the last five years, there are those who, like a father

staring at his grown-up daughter, still can’t help but see PHP as a baby.

The naysayers don’t see version 5.5, or OOP, or modern frameworks like Laravel, or Composer, or a

growing emphasis on test-first development. No, what they see is that old sloppy PHP 4 code, and,

worse, poorly made WordPress themes from 2008.

Is PHP as beautiful a language as Ruby? No. Is its API inconsistent from time to time? Definitely. Has

its community lead the development world, in terms of innovation and software design? Certainly

not. So the question is, why? Why does PHP dominate - to the point of 80% market share - when

competing languages are admittedly more elegant? Well, maybe there’s something else to its success.

Welcome 2

Maybe, the fact that you can create a file, echo hello world, and immediately see the output in a

browser is far more powerful and user friendly than we give it credit for. Maybe its flexibility is a

virtue, rather than a vice.

Since when did ease-of-use become something that others mocked?

Or, perhaps the simple truth is that PHP is not the new hotness. It’s not overly sexy. It’s not in

beta. But, you know what? We get stuff done. Say as much as you want about PHP 4. While you’re

doing that, the rest of us will be building things with the latest that the language and surrounding

ecosystem have to offer.

The time for hating PHP is over. The PHP renaissance has begun. We use modern object-oriented

techniques, we share packages through Composer, we embrace version control and continuous

integration, we evangelize modern frameworks, we believe in testing (you soon will too), we welcome

newcomers (rather than lock the door), and we do it all with a smile.

The best part is that, as a Laravel user, you’re at the forefront of this new modern movement! When I

first joined Laravel’s IRC channel, within minutes, somebody said “Welcome to the family.” Nothing

describes our community more beautifully than that. We’re all in this together. This is the PHP

community I love.

If you purchased this book, it sounds like you could use a bit of help in the testing department. In

Laravel spirit, welcome to the family. Let’s figure this out together.

Is This Book For Me?

The difficult thing about writing a technical book is determining where to draw the line, in terms

of which prerequisites are required before reading chapter one. As long as you have a basic

understanding of the following technologies, please do continue!

• PHP 5.3

• Laravel 3 (preferably version 4)

• Composer

Why Laravel-Specific?

Sure, many of the techniques outlined in this book can be applied to any language or framework,

however, in my experiences, it’s best to take your first steps into this new world in as comfortable

shoes as possible. Can you learn test-driven development from a Java book? Absolutely! Would it

be easier through the lens of the language and framework that you already know? Certainly.

Welcome 3

Secondly, the downside to a generic testing book is that I wouldn’t be able to demonstrate many of

the PHP-specific features and packages that I use in my every day coding. This includes everything

from PHPUnit helper packages, to acceptance testing frameworks, like Codeception.

Finally, it’s my hope that, as you read through this book, in addition to improving your testing

knowledge, you’ll also pick up a variety of Laravel-specific tips and tricks.

Exercises

Sporadically throughout this book, Exercise chapters will be provided. Think of these as highly

in depth tutorials that you are encouraged to work through, as you read the chapter. Theory can

only take us so far; it’s the actual coding that ultimately commits these patterns and techniques to

memory.

So, when you come to an Exercise chapter, pull out the computer and join me through each step!

Errata

Please note that, while I’ve made every attempt to ensure that this book is free of errors and typos,

my human-ness virtually guarantees that some will sneak in! If you notice any mistakes, please file

an issue on GitHub¹, and I’ll update the book as soon as possible. As a reward, a five minute hug

will be granted to each bug filer.

How to Consume This Book

While you can certainly read this book from cover to cover, feel free to flip around to the chapters

that interest you most. Each chapter is self-containing. For instance, if you already understand the

basics of unit testing, then you clearly don’t need to read the obligatory “Unit Testing 101” chapter!

Skip it, and move on to the more interesting bits and pieces.

Get in Touch

It sounds like we’re going to be spending a lot of time together, as you work your way through this

book. If you’d like to attach a face to the author, and, perhaps, ask some questions along the way, be

sure to say hello.

• IRC (#laravel channel): JeffreyWay

¹https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Testing-Decoded

Welcome 4

• Twitter: @jeffrey_way²

²http://twitter.com/jeffrey_way

Into the Great Wide Open

The night was sultry. Wait, no, that’s the wrong book. The night was silent, save for the strangely

comforting repetition of my ceiling fan blades. My wife and animals had long since abandoned me,

in favor of sleep. The dog, as he usually does, held out the longest, but I certainly couldn’t blame

him; who was I to complain that they weren’t awake at three in the morning? No, the setting was

just right. I could feel it. As I continued to direct every inch of my mind toward my laptop screen,

things were beginning to…click.

Developers know this feeling well: those all too rare moments, when, suddenly, what was once

impossible to understand, now, at least slightly, makes sense. We refer to these as “aha” moments.

The first time that I fully understood what purpose a <div> serves was one such moment. Sure, it

may sound obvious to you now, but think back to the early days. What the heck does wrapping

this HTML in a <div> do? The output in the browser looks exactly the same! One day, I was told

to think of them as buckets; place your HTML within these buckets, and, then, when you need to

move things around, you only need to reposition the <div>. Like the snap of a finger, I understood.

I could recite dozens of unique moments like this one, including my slow appreciation for object-

oriented programming, coding to an interface, and test-driven development.

Yes, my love for testing was not an immediate thing, I’m sorry to say. Similar to most developers, I’d

read an article or book on the subject, think to myself, “Hey, that’s interesting,” and then continue

on my existing path. Regardless of whether I knew it or not, though, the seeds had been planted.

As time moved on, that gradual nudging in the back of my mind incrementally grew stronger and

louder.

“You should be testing, Jeffrey.” “If you had written tests for this, you wouldn’t be

manually testing this over and over.” “They’re going to laugh at you, if you don’t offer

tests for this pull request.”

Like most things in life, true change requires us to plant our feet in the sand, and yell, “No more! I’m

done with the old way.” I did it. Thousands of developers have, as well. Now, it’s your turn.

As Leeroy Jenkins³ might say, all right: let’s do this! Here’s the testing book you’ve been waiting for.

³http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU

Chapter 1: Test All The Things

Every testing book in existence offers the obligatory “Why Test” chapter. If you think about it, the

simple fact that you purchased this book hints that you’re already sold on the concept. Having said

that, it can be beneficial to learn why others advocate it as religiously as they do.

Learning how to properly test your applications requires, unfortunately, a fairly steep learning curve.

That may be suprising; it certainly was for me! The basic principle is laughably simple: write tests

to prove that your code works as expected.

Find yourself continuously reaching for Google Chrome to test a particular piece of

functionality? Close it, and instead write a test.

How could that possibly be confusing? Well, things quickly become tricky when you begin

researching what to test.

Do I test controllers? What about models? Do views really need tests? What about my

framework’s code, or hitting the database, or fetching information from web services?

And what about the dozen different kinds of testing that I hear folks on StackOverflow

referring to? What about test frameworks? PHPUnit? Rspec? Capybara? Codeception?

Mink? The list goes on and on. Where do I start?

I’m not a betting man (well, I partially am, but mostly on Scrabble games with my wife, where I

get to embarrass her in public⁴ if I win), but there’s little doubt in my mind that, at some point in

your career (if not right now), you’ve found yourself asking these very questions. Testing is easy.

Understanding what and how to test is another story. Hopefully, this book will help.

You Already Test

The truth is that you’re already a master of testing. If you’ve ever written console.log or submitted

a form in your web app to test a particular piece of functionality, then you were testing. Even as

babies, we were expert testers. “If I twist this knob, then the door opens. Success!”

The only problem is that those tests were performed manually. Why do a job that a computer can

handle for you (and much quicker, too)? Our goal, in this book, is to transition from manually testing

every piece of functionality, to automating the entire process. This allows for a continuous testing

cycle, where one of your test suites is triggered repeatedly as you develop your applications. You’ll

be amazed by the level of security that this can provide.

⁴http://notes.envato.com/team/jeffrey-wins-a-bet/

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 7

“When developers first discover the wonders of test-driven development, it’s like

gaining entrance to a new and better world with less stress and insecurity.” - DHH

6 Wins From TDD

Testing is a deceptive thing. Initially, you might think that the only purpose for it is to ensure that

your code works as expected. But, you’d be wrong. In fact, there are multiple advantages to following

a test-driven development cycle.

1. Security

Should you accidentally make a mistake or break a piece of existing functionality, the test robots will

notify you right away. Imagine making an edit, clicking save, and immediately receiving feedback

on whether you screwed up. How much better would you sleep at night? Remember that terribly

coded class you were too afraid to refactor, because you might break the code? If tests were backing

up that code, your fear would have been unwarranted.

2. Contribution

As you begin developing open source software, you’ll likely leverage the convenience and power

of social coding through GitHub. Eventually (one of the perks), other members of the community

will begin contributing to your projects when they encounter bugs or hope to implement new

functionality. However, if your project doesn’t contain a test suite, when developers submit pull

requests, how could you (or they) possibly determine if their changes have broken the code? The

answer? You can’t - not without manually testing every possible path through the code. Who has

the time to do that for every pull request?

Think of a highly tested project as a well-oiled machine. If I want to contribute to your project, I

only need to follow a handful of steps:

1. Clone the repository

2. Write a test that describes the bug (testThrowsExceptionIfUserNameDoesNotExist)

3. Make the necessary changes to fix it

4. Run the tests to ensure that everything returns green (success)

5. Commit the changes, and submit my pull request

There are even continuous integration services, like Travis⁵, which will automatically trigger a

project’s tests when a pull request is submitted. If those tests fail, I immediately know that it

shouldn’t be merged without further tweaking.

⁵https://travis-ci.org/

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 8

travis-ci.org

3. Big-Boy Pants

If I may go on a tangent for a moment, when it comes to the PHP community, my view is that

WordPress has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, it brought blogging to the masses. This

is undeniable, and must be respected. It also provided an easy-to-use theming framework for

developers. Create an index.php file, insert a loop to fetch the recent posts, and then style. What

could be easier than that?

Well, that’s true. However, it also inadvertently nurtured a community of PHP developers who

hesitated to reach beyond WordPress for new projects. Consequently, modern practices and patterns,

such as test-driven development, MVC, and version control, are largely foreign to them. This

unfortunate truth has had two side-effects:

1. Much of the vitriol directed toward the PHP community is the result of PHP 4 and WordPress

code.

2. Making the leap from WordPress to a full-stack framework, like Laravel, can prove incredibly

difficult. Due to the number of new tools and patterns, the learning curve can be quite steep.

Is WordPress responsible for these side-effects? Yes, and no. One thing’s for sure, though: it certainly

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 9

hasn’t pushed the boundaries of software craftsmanship. In fact, testing is ignored for 95% (made up

number) of the available WordPress plugins.

Eventually, though, we all learn to put on our big-boy pants. We refer to that old-fashioned practice

of coding without thinking as being a cowboy. Don’t plan, don’t think, don’t test; just start coding,

guns a blazing, while frantically refreshing the browser to determine if each change has broken the

application.

We’re better than that. We’re developers. Let’s not be cowboys.

An interesting transition takes place, when you force yourself to think before coding: it actually

improves the quality of the code. Who would have thought? What you’ll soon learn is that there’s

more to testing than simply verifying that a method performs as expected. When we test, we interact

with the class or API before it has been written. This forces us to remove all constraints and instead

focus on readability. What would be the most readable way to fetch data from this web service? Write

it as such, watch it fail, and then make it work. It’s a beautiful thing!

4. Testability Improves Architecture

One thing that you’ll learn throughout this book is to bring the question, How might I test this? to

the forefront of every new piece of code. This simple question will be your security blanket, keeping

you safe from repeating the wreckless, jumbled code of your past. No longer will you get away with,

out of laziness, making a method perform too many actions. Doing so isn’t testable. Tests encourage

structure by making you design before coding.

5. Documentation

A huge, huge bonus to writing tests is that they provide free documentation for the system. Want

to know what functionality a particular class offers? Poke around the tests, and, if they were named

properly (meaning that they describe the behavior of the SUT, or system under test), then you’ll

have a full understanding in no time!

6. It’s Fun

Let’s face it: we’re geeks. And what geek doesn’t enjoy a good game? A fun side-effect to test-driven

development is that it turns your job into a game. How can I take this code from red to green? Follow

each step until you get there. It may sound silly at first, but I promise you: it’s fun. You’ll see for

yourself soon enough.

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 10

What Should I Test?

The basic rule - one that I will repeat multiple times throughout this book - is to test anything that

has the potential to break. Is it possible that one of your routes could break, leading to a 404 page?

Yes? Then write a test to ensure that you catch any breaks as quickly as possible. What about your

custom class that fetches some data from a table and writes it to a file, as a report? Should you test

that? Sure. What about a utility that fetches your latest tweets and displays them in the sidebar of

your website? If the only alternative is to open Google Chrome and check the sidebar, then, most

certainly, the answer is yes.

The downside, at least initially, is that this test all the things mantra can quickly become

overwhelming. With such a steep learning curve, it’s okay if you take one step at a time. Learn

how to test your models. Once you become comfortable with the process, then move on. Baby steps

is the way to go. There’s a reason why we begin by counting on our fingers.

One Note of Caution:

This tip is only partially accurate. Testing anything and everything that has the potential to break

is a noble goal, but there is such a thing as over-testing (though this is debated heavily). A growing

sector in the community would argue that it’s best to limit your tests to the areas of your code in

which they’re most beneficial. In effect, if you rarely make mistakes when writing, say, accessors and

mutators, then don’t bother writing those tests. Tests are meant to serve you; it’s not the other way

around.

Your job, reader, is to decide for yourself where this line is drawn for your own applications. Or, in

other words, when it comes to testing, where is the point of diminishing returns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

6 Signs of Untestable Code

Learning how to test code is a bit like moving to a country where no one speaks your language.

Eventually, the more you push through, you begin to recognize certain patterns. Before long, you

find yourself speaking fluently. It’s not rocket science that we’re working with here; anyone can

learn this stuff. All it takes is pressure…and time (Use Morgan’s Freeman voice when reading that

last line).

As your testing chops improve, you’ll begin to instantly recognize coding pitfalls. Like instinct, you’ll

find yourself silently scanning a piece of code, making note of each anti-pattern.

Here are five easy things to look out for:

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 11

1. New Operators

The principles of unit testing dictate that we should test in isolation. We’ll cover this concept more

in future chapters, but, in short, your goal should be to test the current class, and nothing else. Don’t

access the database, don’t test that your Filesystem class fetches some data from a web service.

Those should have their own tests, so don’t double up.

Once you begin littering the new operator throughout your classes, you break this rule. Remember:

testing in isolation requires that the class, itself, does not instantiate other objects.

Anti-pattern:

1 public function fetch($url)

2 {

3 // We can't test this!

4 $file = new Filesystem;

6 return $this->data = $file->get($url);

7 }

This is one of those situations where PHP isn’t quite as flexible as we might hope. While languages

like Ruby offer the ability to re-open a class (known as monkey-patching) and override methods

(particularly helpful for testing), PHP, unfortunately, does not - at least, not without recompiling

PHP with special extensions. As such, we must make use of dependency injection religiously.

Better:

1 protected $file;

3 public function __construct(Filesystem $file)

4 {

5 $this->file = $file;

6 }

8 public function fetch($url)

9 {

10 return $this->data = $this->file->get($url);

11 }

With this modification, a mocked version of the Filesystem class can be injected, allowing for

complete testability. Don’t worry if the code below is foreign to you. You’ll learn the inner workings

soon! For now, simply try to soak it in.

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 12

1 public function testFetchesData()

2 {

3 $file = Mockery::mock('Filesystem');

4 $file->shouldReceive('get')->once()->andReturn('foo');

6 $someClass = new SomeClass($file);

7 $data = $someClass->fetch('http://example.com');

9 $this->assertEquals('foo', $data);

10 }

The only time when it’s acceptable to instantiate a class inside of another class is when that object

is what we refer to as a value-object, or a simple container with getters and setters that doesn’t do

any real work.

Tip: Hunt down the new keyword in your classes like a hawk. They’re code smells in

PHP (at least for 90% of the cases)!

2. Control-Freak Constructors

A constructor’s only responsibility should be to assign dependencies. Think of this as your class

asking for things. Can I have the Filesystem class, please?

If you’re doing anything beyond that, consider refactoring.

Anti-pattern:

1 public function __construct(Filesystem $file, Cache $cache)

2 {

3 $this->file = $file;

4 $this->cache = $cache;

6 $data = $this->file->get('http://example.com');

7 $this->write($data);

8 }

Better:

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 13

1 public function __construct(Filesystem $file, Cache $cache)

2 {

3 $this->file = $file;

4 $this->cache = $cache;

5 }

The reason why we do this is because, when testing, you’ll repeatedly follow the same process:

1. Arrange

2. Act

3. Assert

If a class’ constructor is littered with its own actions and method calls, each test you write must

account for these actions.

Tip: Keep it simple: limit your constructors to dependency assignments.

3. And, And, And

Calculating what responsibility a class should have can be a difficult thing at first. Sure, we hear

and understand The Single Responsibility Principle, but putting that knowledge into practice can be

tough at first.

4 Ways to Spot a Class With Too Many Responsibilities

1. The simplest way to determine if your class is doing too much is to speak aloud what the class

does. If you find yourself using the word, and, too often, then, chances are, refactoring is in

order.

2. Train yourself to immediately analyze the number of lines in each method. Ideally, a methods

should be limited to just a few (one is preferable, even). If, on the other hand, every method

is dozens of lines long, this a clear indication that too much is going on.

3. If you’re having trouble choosing a name for a class, this, too, just might be a sign that you’ve

gone off track, and need to restructure.

4. If all else fails, show the class to one of your developer friends. If they don’t immediately

realize the general purpose of the class (oh, this class handles the hashing of passwords), then

make some changes.

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 14

Here are some examples to get you started:

• A FileLogger class is responsible for logging data to a file.

• A TwitterStream class fetches and returns tweets from the Twitter API, when given a

username.

• A Validator class is responsible for validating data against a set of rules.

• A SQLBuilder builds a SQL query, given a set of data.

• A UserAuthenticator class determines if the provided login credentials are correct.

Notice how, in none of the examples above did the word, and, occur. This makes them considerably

easier to test, as you’re not forced to juggle multiple objects.

Tip: Reduce each class to being responsible for one thing. This is referred to as The Single

Responsibility Principle.

4. Too Many Paths? Polymorphism to the Rescue!

Truly understanding what polymorphism is requires an aha moment⁶. But, like many things in life,

once you understand it, you’ll never forget it.

Definition: Polymorphism refers to the act of breaking a complex class into sub-classes

which share a common interface, but can have unique functionality.

The easiest possible way to determine if a class could benefit from polymorphism is to hunt down

switch statements (or too many repeated conditionals). Imagine a bank account class that should

calculate yearly interest differently, based on whether the type of account is checking, savings, or

some other type entirely. Here’s an incredibly simplified example:

⁶https://tutsplus.com/2012/04/the-aha-moment/

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 15

1 function addYearlyInterest($balance)

2 {

3 switch ($this->accountType) {

4 case 'checking':

5 $rate = $this->getCheckingInterestRate();

6 break;

8 case 'savings':

9 $rate = $this->getSavingsInterestRate();

10 break;

12 // other types of accounts here

13 }

15 return $balance + ($balance * $rate);

16 }

In situations such as this, a smarter course of action is to extract this similar, but unique logic to

sub-classes.

Define an interface to ensure that you have access to a getRate method.

1 interface BankInterestInterface {

2 public function getRate();

3 }

Create a checking implementation of the interface.

1 class CheckingInterest implements BankInterestInterface {

2 public function getRate()

3 {

4 return .01;

5 }

6 }

Create a savings implementation of the interface.

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 16

1 class SavingsInterest implements BankInterestInterface {

2 public function getRate()

3 {

4 return .03;

5 }

6 }

Now, the original method can be cleaned up considerably. Notice how we’ve type-hinted the

$interest variable below. This provides us with some protection, as we don’t want to fall into

a trap of calling a getRate method on a class, if it doesn’t exist. This is precisely why we’ve coded

to an interface. By implementing the interface, the class is forced to offer a getRate method.

1 function addYearlyInterest($balance, BankInterestInterface $interest)

2 {

3 $rate = $interest->getRate();

5 return $balance + ($balance * $rate);

6 }

8 $bank = new BankAccount;

9 $bank->addYearlyInterest(100, new CheckingInterest); // 101

10 $bank->addYearlyInterest(100, new SavingsInterest); // 103

Even better, testing this code is a cinch, now that we no longer need to account for multiple paths

through the function. Again, don’t sweat over the syntax. We’ll cover it soon enough.

1 public function testAddYearlyInterest()

2 {

3 $interest = Mockery::mock('BankInterestInterface');

4 $interest->shouldReceive('getRate')->once()->andReturn(.03);

6 $bank = new BankAccount;

7 $newBalance = $bank->addYearlyInterest(100, $interest);

9 $this->assertEquals(103, $newBalance);

10 }

Tip: Polymorphism allows you to split complex classes into small chunks, often referred

to as sub-classes. Remember: the smaller the class, the easier it is to test.

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 17

5. Too Many Dependencies

In the Control Freak Constructor tip, I noted that dependencies should be injected through the class’

constructor. Having said that, if you find that a particular class requires four or more dependencies,

this is, more often than not, a tell-tale sign that your class is asking for too much.

“I usually re-evaluate any classes with more than four [dependencies].” - Taylor Otwell⁷

A basic principle of object-oriented programming is that there’s a correlation between the number

of parameters a class or method accepts, and the degree to which it is flexible (and, in effect testable).

Each time that you remove a dependency or parameter, you’re improving the code.

If one of your classes lists too many dependencies, consider refactoring.

6. Too Many Bugs

I once heard Ben Orenstein remark that bugs love company. Boy, is this a true statement if I’ve ever

heard one. If you notice that they crop up in a particular class too frequently, then the code just might

be screaming for refactoring and sub-classes. Think about it: the reason for the bug’s existence is

because you couldn’t understand the code well enough the first time around; it was too complicated!

And guess what? Complicated code often signals untestable code. The coupling may simply be too

strong, opening the way for sneaky bugs…and all their pals, too.

Definition: Coupling refers to the degree in which two components in your system

are dependent upon one another. If removing one affects the other, then you’ve

unfortunately written tighly coupled code that isn’t easy to change.

As Ben beautifully put it, if there was a bug on line seven, then, chances are, there’s also a bug on

line eleven. Nip that in the bud as early as possible.

Tip: When presented with such bugs, begin asking yourself how you can split the logic

up into smaller (easier to test) classes. In addition to improved testability, one perk to

this pattern is that it allows for significantly more readable production code.

Bugs love company. Pull out the bug spray.

⁷https://twitter.com/taylorotwell/status/334789979920285697

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 18

Test Jargon

I’m not so self-consumed to think that this book will serve as your sole source of testing education

(I certainly hope it isn’t). If you’re anything like myself, you’ll find yourself scouring the web late

at night for every last fragment of education to fill in those missing pieces in your understanding.

In the process, you’ll come across incredibly confusing jargon. Worse, this terminology is inconsis-

tent from language to language! Yikes! In this book - and in the spirit of simplicity - we’ll break things

down into their simplest terms. Scan the following definitions, but don’t feel that you must commit

them to memory all at once. In truth, in many ways, I’m very much against all this confusing jargon.

If a term doesn’t immediately make sense, then it should be changed. The development community

should take its cues from astrophysics.

“The most accessible field in science, from the point of view of language, is astrophysics.

What do you call spots on the sun? Sunspots. Regions of space you fall into and you

don’t come out of? Black holes. Big red stars? Red giants. So I take my fellow scientists

to task. He’ll use his word, and if I understand it, I’ll say, “Oh, does that mean da-da-

da-de-da?” - Neil Degrasse Tyson

Unit Testing

Think of unit testing as going over your classes and methods with a fine-tooth comb, ensuring that

each piece of code works exactly like you expect. Unit tests should be executed in isolation, to make

the process of debugging as easy as possible. 80% of your tests will be in this style.

If it helps, when you think of unit testing, think one object, and one object only. If a test fails, you

know exactly where to look.

Model Testing

Some members of the Ruby on Rails community associate model testing (even when these tests

touch the database) with unit testing. This unfortunately can be a bit misleading. Unit tests should

be isolated from all external dependencies. Once you ignore this basic rule, you’re no longer unit

testing. You’re writing integration tests (more on that shortly).

In this book, when we test our models, we’ll stay true to the traditional definition of unit testing,

unless specified otherwise.

Imagine that a method in your model is responsible for sending an email. If following good design

patterns, you’ll likely have a class that is dedicated to sending email (single responsibility priniciple).

This presents a problem, however: how do we successfully unit test this method, if it calls an external

Mailer class? The answer is to use mocks, which we’ll cover extensively in this book. A mock allows

us to fake the Mailer class, and write an expectation to ensure that the proper method is called. This

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 19

way, even if the Mailer component is currently broken (it will have its own tests), we can still verify

whether or not the model method is working as expected.

Integration Testing

If a unit test verifies that code works correctly in isolation, then an integration test will fall on the

other end of the spectrum. These tests will flex multiple parts of your application, and typically

won’t rely on mocks or stubs. As such, be sure to create a special test database.

As an example, think of a car. Sure, the engine and fuel injection system might individually work

as expected (each passes its own set of unit tests), but will they work when grouped together?

Integration testing verifies this.

Functional (Controller) Testing

What do you call the process of testing a controller? Some frameworks may refer to this as functional

testing (and it is), but we’ll simply stick with - wait for it - controller testing!

More traditionally, think of functional testing as a way for you and your team to ensure that the code

does what you expect. While unit tests verify each unit of a class, functional testing is a bit broader

and can trigger multiple pieces of your application. Most frequently, these tests will be triggered

from the outside in, which is why they’re also commonly referred to as System Tests. One important

note is that functional tests typically won’t require a server to be running.

Acceptance Testing

You’ve already learned that functional testing ensures that the code meets the requirements of the

development team. However, there will be cases when, even though the tests return green, the

final implemented feature will not meet the requirements of the client. This is what we refer to as

acceptance testing. In other words, does this code meet the requirements of the client? Your software

can pass all unit, functional, and integration tests, but still fail the acceptance tests, if the client or

customer realizes that the feature doesn’t work as they expected.

Tip: If functional tests meet a developer’s assumptions and requirements, acceptance

tests are intended to verify the client’s expectations.

Think of Tuts+ Premium⁸, the subscription-based technical education service that I work for.

Recently, we added a new bookmarking feature that allows you to save courses and eBooks that

⁸http://tutsplus.com

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 20

you want to read later. Before the developers can begin writing a single line of code, they first need

to understand what the content team’s expectations are - they’re the ones requesting the feature.

This requires an acceptance test.

1 In order to keep track of what to learn next

2 As a member

3 I want to bookmark content

Once this acceptance test passes, it may be assumed that the feature has fully been implemented,

and meets the client’s (the content team, in this case) expectations.

The bookmarking feature on Tuts+ Premium required acceptance tests.

In the final section of this book, you’ll learn how to write acceptance tests using the Codeception

framework. You’ll find that that this allows us to use human speak to define how we want to interact

with our applications.

Are Tests Too Expensive?

A common testing myth is that, though they might be beneficial, when it comes to the real world, a

client’s budget factors into the equation. As they put it, no client is willing to double your budget for

Chapter 1: Test All The Things 21

the sole purpose of providing you with more security.

Is there merit to this argument? No, no there’s not. In fact, plenty of studies have found that a test-

driven development cycle reduces the length of time it takes to complete a project.

Relax

I’ll be the first one to tell you that these definitions took me a very long time to learn and appreciate.

I certainly don’t expect this to stick after the first reading. Sheesh; we haven’t even gotten to the

“Intro to PHPUnit” chapter! For now, simply keep in mind that, as you develop applications, you’ll

make use of multiple styles of testing.

Having said that, the unfortunate truth is that the development community, as a whole, can’t seem to

agree on terminology to save their lives. You’ll also comes across terms, like system testing, request

specs, medium tests, and more. In most cases, there’s close overlap between these terms and the ones

referenced earlier. Don’t worry about this too much; the most important thing is to get you testing.

You’ll develop your own style in time.

As the saying goes, it doesn’t matter how you test…just as long as you do test.

The dissonance continues beyond terminology. While it’s fair to say that most developers these

days agree that writing tests is vital, in what order those tests are written is a different story. Some

evangelists, like Bob Martin (Uncle Bob), recommend strict adherence to the TDD philosophy: do

not write a single line of production code until you’ve first written a test.

“It has become infeasible for a software developer to consider himself professional if he

does not practice test-driven development.” - Bob Martin⁹

But, other equally influential developers, like DHH (creator of Ruby on Rails), freely admit that they

write the tests after the production code - roughly 80% of the time.

“Don’t force yourself to test-first every controller, model, and view (my ratio is typically

20% test-first, 80% test-after).” - David Heinemeier Hansson¹⁰

It’s your job to take in all of the input and advice around the web, and mold that into a style that

you (or your development team) can embrace. As such, view this book less as a Bible, and more as

one person’s adaptation of testing, that you can then morph to your style. There is no spoon.

⁹http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KtHQGs3zFAM#t=77s

¹⁰http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3159-testing-like-the-tsa

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit

I get it: you’re a cowboy and want to dive into testing your Laravel applications right now. Whoa,

hold on there, pony. Before we can dig into Laravel 4’s excellent testing facilities, we first need to

install a required prerequisite: PHPUnit.

PHPUnit¹¹ is a unit testing framework, created by Sebastian Bergmann. Similar to other

frameworks, PHPUnit uses assertions to verify that the code under test (or SUT, for

system under test) behaves as expected.

Installation

At the time of this writing, there are a few different ways to install PHPUnit on your system,

including:

• Pear - No one on the planet has ever enjoyed Pear.

• Composer - Installs PHPUnit on a per-project basis.

• PHAR - Think of this one as a one-click archive.

You’re certainly free to choose the method you wish, however, as we’ll heavily be leveraging Laravel

and Composer in this book, we’ll take the simplest route, and add PHPUnit as a development

dependency to the composer.json file of our Laravel application.

Wait, what’s this Composer¹² thing? It’s the PHP community’s preferred tool for

dependency management. It provides an easy way to declare a project’s dependencies,

and pull them in with a single command. As a Laravel 4 developer, it’s vital that, before

moving forward, you have a basic understanding of what Composer is, and how to use

it.

Before we dive into a Laravel 4 project, let’s begin with the absolute basics. When learning new

technologies, libraries, or frameworks, always strip the examples down to the bare essentials. This

is the best way to learn as quickly as possible.

¹¹http://www.phpunit.de/manual/3.8/en/index.html

¹²http://getcomposer.org

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 23

Create a new folder, called lesson. Within it, add a new composer.json file, and append the

following:

1 {

2 "require-dev": {

3 "phpunit/phpunit": "3.7.*"

4 }

5 }

Notice how we’re not adding the dependency to the require object. As PHPUnit is only necessary

during development, we don’t need to worry about the production server pulling in this package.

The next step is to install it and any other dependencies that you might have registered in your

application. From the command line, assuming that Composer is installed globally on your system,

run:

1 composer install --dev

Give that command a moment to process, and, if all goes according to plan, you should now have

access to both vendor/bin/phpunit and vendor/phpunit/. Go ahead and try it out by viewing a list

of PHPUnit’s commands. From the root of your project, run:

1 vendor/bin/phpunit -h

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 24

If that output feels overwhelming, don’t worry. Like Git, a basic understanding of these various

commands can carry you a long way.

Tip: You certainly don’t want to type vendor/bin/phpunit every time you need to run

your tests. Add vendor/bin to your path, so that you can simply type phpunit.

Don’t forget that aliases are your friend. To call PHPUnit with a single key, on a Mac, try: alias

t="vendor/bin/phpunit". This is a temporary alias, but can easily be added to ∼/.bash_profile.

Making Packages Available Globally

The method outlined in the previous section requires PHPUnit to be installed through Composer for

each new project. If you prefer, you can alternatively create a master composer project for packages

that should be available globally. To allow for this, within your computer’s home directory (or

anywhere, really), create a new folder, composer-packages, add its companion composer.json file,

and list your desired global dependencies within the require-dev object.

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 25

1 {

2 "require": {

3 "phpunit/phpunit": "3.7.*"

4 }

5 }

Next, add the full path to the project’s vendor/bin directory to your path. Here’s an example for my

Unix-based system. This can be added to your ∼/.bash_profile or ∼/.zshrc, if you use oh-my-

zsh¹³.

1 export PATH=/Users/Jeffrey/composer-packages/vendor/bin

With this technique, PHPUnit will always be available. Even better, updating these global packages

only requires a simple composer update.

While installing PHPUnit directly through Composer is certainly a valid route - and will

do just fine for the purposes of this book - some developers prefer to stick with Pear (I

have no idea why). If you fit that description, feel free to do so. It makes zero difference.

Assertions 101

It’s time for the “hello world” of testing. In this section, you’ll be introduced to your first PHPUnit

assertion, assertTrue.

Add a new file, called PracticeTest.php, to a tests folder within your project. Here’s some

boilerplate to get you started.

1 <?php // lesson/tests/PracticeTest.php

3 class PracticeTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testHelloWorld()

5 {

6 $greeting = 'Hello, World.';

8 $this->assertTrue($greeting === 'Hello, World.');

9 }

10 }

Before we decode it, run the test to ensure that it works as expected.

¹³https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 26

1 $ phpunit tests

2 PHPUnit 3.7.18 by Sebastian Bergmann.

4 .

6 Time: 0 seconds, Memory: 2.50Mb

8 OK (1 test, 1 assertion)

Because we have not yet applied any configuration options, we must specify a path to where the

tests for our project are located. PHPUnit will tunnel through this folder recursively, searching for

test files. This means that you’re free to organize the tests folder structure however you wish. For

now, though, keep things simple, and store all test files in the same space.

First, notice the final line, OK (1 test, 1 assertion). This, to state the obvious, reveals that one

test passed successfully. Did you notice the single period in the output? That’s the representation of

a single test. When you add a second test, then two periods will be displayed… if they both pass, of

course. In the event that the test fails, instead of a period, you’ll find a big fat F, for failure.

1 $ phpunit --colors tests

2 PHPUnit 3.7.18 by Sebastian Bergmann.

4 F

6 Time: 0 seconds, Memory: 2.75Mb

8 There was 1 failure:

10 1) PracticeTest::testHelloWorld

11 Hello, World.

12 Failed asserting that true is false.

14 /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/chapter-1/tests/PracticeTest.php:8

The majority of your days will be spent staring at failing tests, so get used to it! Luckily, the output

will prove incredibly helpful. Above, we can see that there was one failure from the testHelloWorld

test, and specifically on line eight. Helpful!

Where Are The Colors? In the next chapter, we’ll dig more deeply into PHPUnit’s

configuration options. Until then, use the --colors option to request colored output:

vendor/bin/phpunit --colors tests.

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 27

Decoding A Test Class Structure

Even though this is a simple class, there are a handful of important bits and pieces to be aware of.

To refresh your memory, here’s the code once again.

1 <?php // lesson/tests/PracticeTest.php

3 class PracticeTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testHelloWorld()

5 {

6 $greeting = 'Hello, World.';

8 $this->assertTrue($greeting === 'Hello, World.', $greeting);

9 }

10 }

• File Naming - The file name is important. Notice that we’re following a FooTest.php

convention. While this can be modified, let’s stick with the defaults for now. Convention

over configuration, right?

• Matching - The name of the class is the same as the file name.

• Inheritance - The class extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase. This class was made available

when we installed PHPUnit through Composer. You’ll soon find, however, that, when

testing in Laravel, we typically extend Laravel’s TestCase (the other file within the tests/

folder). If you move up the inheritance chain, you’ll find that a parent class does extend

PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase. We simply inherit from TestCase to set up some Laravel-

specific processes, as well as pull in a few helper methods for testing our applications.

• Method Naming - Every test should be contained within a method that has a descriptive

name, and begins with the word, test.

Take a few moments, and commit some of these techniques to memory. Let’s next investigate the

test logic, itself.

assertTrue

1 $greeting = 'Hello, World.';

2 $this->assertTrue($greeting == 'Hello, World.', $greeting);

Hopefully, you’ll find that PHPUnit’s test assertions are quite readable! Even without understanding

the nuts and bolts, it’s easy to decipher what’s happening here. All assertions are available on the

test class instance. In this case, we want to assert that the value of the $greeting variable is, in fact,

equal to “Hello, World.”

The assertTrue method accepts two methods.

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 28

1 $this->assertTrue(ACTUAL, OPTIONAL MESSAGE);

As you’ll find in PHPUnit, inverse methods are nearly always available. Should you need to assert

that a value is, not true, but false, then assertFalse has you covered.

1 $this->assertFalse(ACTUAL, OPTIONAL MESSAGE);

assertEquals

In the previous example, our only goal was to assert that a variable’s value was equal to a specified

string. While assertTrue will get the job done, it’s not the most readable option in this case. Never

ignore test readability. It’ll eventually bite you, if you do.

Let’s introduce another assertion that is a better fit for this task: assertEquals.

1 $greeting = 'Hello, World.';

2 $this->assertEquals('Hello, World.', $greeting);

That’s better, isn’t it? Similar to most of PHPUnit’s assertions, assertEquals accepts three argu-

ments:

1 $this->assertEquals(EXPECTED, ACTUAL, OPTIONAL MESSAGE);

assertNotEquals is the inverse of this assertion, and has the same signature.

If you wish to prove that two values are equal to one another, then, clearly, assertEquals is a better

choice than assertTrue, even though both will work. Run the tests by returning to the command

line and calling PHPUnit:

1 $ phpunit

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 29

Success! Do a happy dance, spin three times, and continue on.

Your Turn: Make a variable, $sum, equal to 2 + 2. Next, write an assertion to prove that

$sum does, in fact, equal 4. For bonus points, write the assertion first.

assertSame

assertEquals will break down as soon as you need to compare with strict equality. For instance,

how might you assert that a variable is equal to 0? You might try:

1 $val = 0;

2 $this->assertEquals(0, $val);

This will work; however, should you subsitute any other falsy value, the tests will still return green.

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 30

1 $val = null;

2 $this->assertEquals(0, $val); // true

In situations, when you require strict comparison (or effectively ===), reach for assertSame, as

demonstrated below:

1 $val = null;

2 $this->assertSame(0, $val); // false

4 $val = 0;

5 $this->assertSame(0, $val); // true

assertContains

The goal of this book isn’t to teach every assertion, however, it’s important to cover the essentials.

While PHPUnit offers dozens of assertions, you’ll likely find that even a handful of them will serve

the huge majority of your testing needs. In the instances where a piece of code requires a different

form of assertion, PHPUnit is heavily documented.

Imagine that you have a list of names, and need to prove that the array contains a specific value.

Again, while assertTrue can handle this task, it’s better to opt for the more readable option:

assertContains.

1 public function testLaravelDevsIncludesDayle()

2 {

3 $names = ['Taylor', 'Shawn', 'Dayle'];

4 $this->assertContains('Dayle', $names);

5 }

The signature of assertContains is:

1 $this->assertContains(NEEDLE, HAYSTACK, OPTIONAL MESSAGE);

An easy way to remember the argument order for these various assertions is to read them

aloud. “Assert contains Dayle, given this HAYSTACK” is more readable than “Assert

contains HAYSTACK, and the item, Dayle.”

As you are now aware, the inverse assertion is also available. Let’s ensure that a troll is not included

in our list of influential Laravel developers.

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 31

1 $names = ['Taylor', 'Shawn', 'Dayle'];

2 $this->assertNotContains('Troll', $names); // true

assertArrayHasKey

There will be times when you need to assert that a provided array contains, not a specific value, but

a key. For instance:

1 $family = [

2 'parents' => 'Joe',

3 'children' => ['Timmy', 'Suzy']

4 ];

In this pseudo-example, let’s assume that we require a $family to contain a parent. In situations

such as this, arrayContains is not the right tool for the job.

1 $this->assertContains('parents', $family); // Failed asserting that an arra\

2 y contains 'parents'.

Instead, we need to assert that a key exists within the specified array. The solution is assertArrayHasKey.

1 public function testFamilyRequiresParent()

2 {

3 $family = [

4 'parents' => 'Joe',

5 'children' => ['Timmy', 'Suzy']

6 ];

8 $this->assertArrayHasKey('parents', $family); // true

9 }

To take things a step further, what if we expect the parents key to contain an array of one or more

parents? How might we do that?

assertInternalType

assertInternalType can be used to verify the type of the supplied variable.

1 $this->assertInternalType(EXPECTED, ACTUAL, MESSAGE);

Continuing on with the family example, to assert that a family’s parents key is equal to an array of

one or more items, we might do:

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 32

1 public function testFamilyRequiresParent()

2 {

3 $family = [

4 'parents' => 'Joe',

5 'children' => ['Timmy', 'Suzy']

6 ];

8 $this->assertInternalType('array', $family['parents']); // false

9 }

Or, to assert that a variable is of type integer:

1 $age = 25;

2 $this->assertInternalType('integer', $age); // true

assertInstanceOf

Often, you will need to ensure that a variable is an instance of some class. This is easy in PHPUnit,

via the assertInstanceOf method.

1 $this->assertInstanceOf(EXPECTED, ACTUAL, MESSAGE);

For a usage example, given the following code:

1 class DateFormatter {

2 protected $stamp;

4 public function __construct(DateTime $stamp)

5 {

6 $this->stamp = $stamp;

7 }

9 public function getStamp()

10 {

11 return $this->stamp;

12 }

13 }

To ensure that $stamp is an instance of PHP’s DateTime class (other than the fact that we’ve provided

type hints), we could use the following test:

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 33

1 public function testStampMustBeInstanceOfDateTime()

2 {

3 $date = new DateFormatter(new DateTime);

5 $this->assertInstanceOf('DateTime', $date->getStamp()); // true

6 }

Asserting Exceptions

When unit testing, it’s important to test every possible path through your code. This is one of the

core reasons why, if you use too many conditionals, it can make a class or method difficult to test.

An example of such a path might be one that throws an exception. In PHPUnit, we use doc-blocks

to assert exceptions, like so:

1 /**

2 * @expectedException EXCEPTION_NAME

3 */

This doc-block declares that, given the contents of the method that it corresponds to, PHPUnit should

expect an exception to be thrown. If one is not, then the test will fail.

Let’s say that a method should thrown an exception if a non-numeric value is passed. Here’s how

we might assert that:

1 /**

2 * @expectedException InvalidArgumentException

3 */

4 public function testCalculatesCommission()

5 {

6 $commission = new Commission;

7 $commission->setSalePrice('fifteen dollars');

8 }

Notice how, in this case, there is no assertX call. Instead, we’ve merely added the necessary code

that should make the class throw an exception.

Summary

While we could continue on our way, reviewing every available PHPUnit assertion, this would be

unwise. Our brains are leaky little things; fill them up too quickly, and they burst. The handful of

Chapter 2: Introducing PHPUnit 34

assertions covered in this chapter should be enough to get you on your way. When you do need

additional functionality, the documentation is only a click away.

Next, before we dive into Laravel-specific testing, we should take some time to configure PHPUnit

more fully to our needs.

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit

PHPUnit ships with a vast array of configuration options - many of which you’ll never use. In this

chapter, we’ll discuss a selection of the most helpful options, and then review the process of creating

a custom configuration XML file to store these settings.

Options

Technicolor

Though you’re free to live life in black and white, it’s recommended that you instead enable colored

output when running tests. Similar to a traffic stop light, a simple green versus red output can help

to speed up your development workflow. We respond to color more quickly than text.

1 phpunit --colors

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 36

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 37

Bootstrapping

There will be times when you need to include certain files before executing your tests. A perfect

example of this is ensuring that that Composer’s autoload script (located at vendor/autoload.php)

is included before any tests run. Though you could manually require this file either at the beginning

of every test class or within a master file, it’s better to leverage PHPUnit’s bootstrap switch, like so:

1 phpunit --bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php"

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 38

Output Formats

In addition to the default format for test reporting, PHPUnit offers two alternative flags: --tap and

--testdox.

TAP, an acronym for Test Anything Protocol, is Perl’s text-based interface between testing modules.

1 $ phpunit --tap tests

2 TAP version 13

3 ok 1 - PracticeTest::testHelloWorld

4 ok 2 - PracticeTest::testHelloUniverse

5 1..2

The TestDox format takes a slightly different approach. It will read your test methods and convert

them from camelCase names to readable sentences. As an example, testRedirectsToHomePageOnSave

will be converted to Redirects To Home Page On Save. See below:

1 $ phpunit --testdox tests

2 PHPUnit 3.7.18 by Sebastian Bergmann.

4 Practice

5 [x] Reloads current page if save fails

6 [x] Redirects to home page on save

This can be helpful for a birds-eye view of which tests were successful, as well as providing docu-

mentation. Remember, that’s one of the significant advantages to writing tests: free documentation!

XML Configuration File

If you find yourself passing multiple switches with every call to phpunit, then you’re doing it wrong.

Don’t do this:

1 phpunit --bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php" --testdox --colors tests/

Instead, leverage PHPUnit’s ability to read a configuration file. Let’s review the simplest possible

example. Within the root of your project, create a phpunit.xml file and insert:

1 <phpunit colors="true"></phpunit>

With that single line, you may now exclude the --colors flag from your tests. However, let’s flesh

this file out a bit more, using some options that you haven’t yet seen.

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 39

1 <phpunit bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php"

2 colors="true"

3 convertErrorsToExceptions="true"

4 convertNoticesToExceptions="true"

5 convertWarningsToExceptions="true"

6 stopOnFailure="true">

7 </phpunit>

The first two attributes should already be familiar to you. The remainder are optional, and boil down

to personal choice. I tend to prefer that all errors, notices, and warnings be converted to exceptions.

Also, if a test fails, then I want to cancel any remaining tests. Think of it as Control + C on failure.

Though some may disagree, as I see it, there’s no use in executing potentially hundreds of tests if

you’re only concerned with fixing the first failure.

As things currently stand, we still must manually specify the path to the tests/ directory. That’s

no good! To set a custom directory, use the <testsuites> element along with any number of child

<testsuite> elements, like so:

1 <phpunit bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php"

2 colors="true"

3 convertErrorsToExceptions="true"

4 convertNoticesToExceptions="true"

5 convertWarningsToExceptions="true"

6 stopOnFailure="true">

8 <testsuites>

9 <testsuite name="Test Suite">

10 <directory>tests</directory>

11 </testsuite>

12 </testsuites>

13 </phpunit>

Splitting your test suites in this way can add a great deal of flexibility down the line, when you only

wish to test a particular subset of your application. Let’s add another test suite that is specifically

for, say, integration tests.

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 40

1 <testsuites>

2 <testsuite name="Test Suite">

3 <directory>tests</directory>

4 </testsuite>

6 <testsuite name="Integration">

7 <directory>tests/integration</directory>

8 </testsuite>

9 </testsuites>

To execute only the tests referenced in the “Integration” test suite, run:

1 phpunit --testsuite="Integration"

For most chapters in this book, we’ll stick with one master test suite, however, for real-world projects,

be sure to organize your tests. On save, you don’t want to be executing acceptance tests, in addition

to the unit tests.

Nonetheless, to execute all tests within the tests/ folder while passing the options listed above,

simply run phpunit. Success!

Did You Know? Laravel ships with its own phpunit.xml file (located in the root of

your application). Though it may freely be modified, most of the time, you’ll find that

the default settings are perfect for your needs. As such, manually creating this file is

only necessary for non-Laravel projects.

Continuous Testing

An excellent way to get into the testing groove is to automate the process of running your tests

each time an applicable file is saved. While light-weight editors, like Sublime Text, don’t offer this

functionality out of the box (most IDEs do), it’s a fairly simple process to install a few command-line

tools to get the job done.

Please note that, to leverage the following tools, you’ll need to install Ruby and Rubygems. Mac

users can follow this guide¹⁴, while Windows faithfuls can use the simple Ruby Installer¹⁵.

¹⁴http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/ruby/how-to-install-ruby-on-a-mac/

¹⁵http://rubyinstaller.org/

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 41

RubyGems¹⁶ is the Ruby community’s gem hosting service, not dissimilar to Composer’s

Packagist companion.

If you like the idea of automated testing, I recommend using Guard¹⁷ to handle your continuous

testing needs, along with the notification tool that best suits your needs and OS.

Definition: Guard is a command line tool to easily handle events on file system

modifications.

To get setup, begin by installing Guard and the PHPUnit plugin through the command line.

1 gem install guard

2 gem install guard-phpunit

Pay close attention to the output upon running these commands. It’s possible that you’ll be advised

to install additional packages, such as rb-fsevent. If so, follow orders!

1 gem install rb-fsevent

Lastly, if you desire notifications (essentially a PASS/FAIL banner on save), Mac users should install

the Terminal Notifier Guard¹⁸ gem.

1 gem install terminal-notifier-guard

With that, you’re all set to go! Initialize Guard for your application by running:

1 guard init

3 19:15:57 - INFO - Writing new Guardfile to /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/demo/Guar\

4 dfile

5 19:15:57 - INFO - phpunit guard added to Guardfile, feel free to edit it

Assuming that guard-phpunit is the only Guard plugin that you have installed, running this com-

mand will generate a file, called Guardfile, written in Ruby, containing the following boilerplate:

¹⁶http://rubygems.org

¹⁷https://github.com/guard/guard

¹⁸https://github.com/Springest/terminal-notifier-guard

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 42

1 # A sample Guardfile

2 # More info at https://github.com/guard/guard#readme

4 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors' do

5 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

6 end

If you’re new to Ruby, don’t let this code scare you; it’s really quite simple. It specifies that we want

Guard to watch all files that match the regular expression, ˆ.+Test\.php$, or, in human speak, any

file in the root of the project that ends with Test.php.

Let’s adjust this somewhat to reflect a more realistic folder structure.

1 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors', :tests_path => 'tests' do

2 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

3 end

Using the tests_path option, we’ve specified that the tests/ path should be used when triggering

all tests. Give it a try: create a simple tests/ExampleTest.php file, and add:

1 <?php // tests/ExampleTest.php

3 class ExampleTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testContinuousTesting()

5 {

6 $this->assertTrue(false);

7 }

8 }

Now Guard doesn’t magically run automatically. You must tell it when to begin watching files, using

the guard command.

1 $ guard

2 19:41:15 - INFO - Guard uses TerminalNotifier to send notifications.

3 19:41:15 - INFO - Guard uses TerminalTitle to send notifications.

4 19:41:15 - INFO - Running all tests

5 19:41:15 - INFO - F

6 > [^C5AD6455F02F]

7 > [^C5AD6455F02F] Failures:

8 > [^C5AD6455F02F]

9 > [^C5AD6455F02F] 1) ExampleTest::testContinuousTesting

10 > [^C5AD6455F02F] Failed asserting that false is true.

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 43

11 > [^C5AD6455F02F] # /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/demo/tests/ExampleTest.php:\

12 6

13 > [^C5AD6455F02F]

14 > [^C5AD6455F02F] Finished in 0 seconds

15 > [^C5AD6455F02F] 1 test, 1 assertion, 1 failures

If everything went according to plan, you’ll see something along the lines of Figure 2.3. Continuous

testing for the win!

As long as a file within the tests/ folder that matches the regular expression, ˆ.+Test\.php$, is

modified, the tests will run again. Make a few changes to tests/ExampleTest.php, save, and see for

yourself.

If you return to the command line, to re-run all tests, hit Enter. Alternatively, to cancel Guard, type

exit, or simply e.

Watching Files

Chances are high that you want Guard to monitor more than merely test files. If following a TDD

cycle, you’ll surely need a way to trigger a class’ associated test upon save. Here’s an updated

Guardfile that creates a link between Calculator.php and CalculatorTest.php.

1 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors', :tests_path => 'tests' do

2 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

4 watch('app/libraries/Calculator.php') { 'tests/libraries/CalculatorTest.p\

5 hp'}

6 end

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 44

To verbalize this new line of code: when Calculator.php is modified, then run, not all tests, but

specifically the one at tests/libraries/CalculatorTest.php. However, we clearly don’t want to

repeat this step for every single file in our project! Let’s instead use regular expressions to make the

matching more dynamic.

1 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors', :tests_path => 'tests' do

2 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

4 watch(%r{app/libraries/(.+).php}) { |m| "tests/libraries/#{m[1]}Test.php"\

5 }

6 end

With this modification, any file within the app/libraries directory will trigger its associated test.

Tip: Notice how the folder structure for our tests mirror the app structure. This is widely

considered to be a best practice.

This takes care of our library tests, however, to extend it even further, we might update the Guardfile

to:

1 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors', :tests_path => 'tests' do

2 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

4 watch(%r{app/(.+)/(.+).php}) { |m| "tests/#{m[1]}/#{m[2]}Test.php" }

5 end

Now, the subfolder matching will be dynamic as well. When the file, app/models/User.php, is saved,

Guard will now attempt to run the test located in tests/models/UserTest.php.

Triggering Multiple Files

There will be times when you wish to execute all tests for your app, if a particular file is saved. For

example, if app/routes.php is saved, there likely won’t be any dedicated test file to execute. In these

situations, it’s easiest to instead trigger all tests within a given folder.

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 45

1 guard 'phpunit', :cli => '--colors', :tests_path => 'tests' do

2 watch(%r{^.+Test.php$})

4 watch(%r{^app/views/.+$}) { Dir.glob('tests/\**/*Test.php') }

5 end

With this last modification, if any file within the app/views folder is saved, Guard will trigger all

*Test.php files within the tests/ directory. Above, we’re using Dir.glob() to return an array of all

appropriate files. It’s admittedly not the most elegant solution, but, until the Guard PHPUnit plugin

offers a better solution, this is the best option.

Tip: Remember, Guard isn’t limited to PHPUnit by any stretch. It can additionally be

used to compile Sass and CoffeeScript, reload the browser, and much more. Refer to the

Guard Wiki¹⁹ for a full list of available plugins.

Some Vim-Specific Advice

Though plenty of developers prefer automated testing on save, I take a different approach and

manually trigger my tests. Unless you’re a Vim user, feel free to continue on to the next section.

As a Vim user, I use a few mappings when doing TDD.

1 nmap ,t :!phpunit<cr>

This specifies that, when I type ,t, the phpunit command should be executed (<cr> represents a

carriage return). I’ve found that, for my workflow, this makes for the cleanest TDD cycle - one that

I’m in complete control over.

While the previous command is excellent for triggering the full test-suite, when testing in isolation,

it’s better to exclusively target the applicable class. In these cases, I manually create mappings on

the fly to override the default behavior of ,t. A first option might be:

1 nmap ,t :!phpunit %<cr>

The only difference with this mapping is that PHPUnit will exclusively test the current class

(represented by the percentage sign). Though this works, it assumes that the mapping is triggered

from the test class. Chances are, though, that, as a Vim user, you’ll be using split panes (multiple

windows). A better approach is to hardcode the file that you’re currently working on.

¹⁹https://github.com/guard/guard/wiki/List-of-available-Guards

Chapter 3: Configuring PHPUnit 46

1 nmap ,t :!phpunit app/tests/MyClassTest.php<cr>

Now, regardless of which split pane you might be in, running ,t will correctly trigger the tests

located in MyClassTest.php. Success! You now have a simple key stroke for testing the class. Don’t

forget that you can press the up arrow key to cycle through your previous commands. This way,

you don’t have to manually type the same sequence over and over.

Summary

In this chapter, you were introduced to the basics of configuring PHPUnit. For language-agnostic

projects, an understanding of these various options will prove essential. However, as noted earlier,

when testing Laravel applications, don’t forget that the framework provides its own phpunit.xml

file out of the box.

This file is by no means read-only. If you need to add a new test suite (perhaps for your acceptance

tests), edit the file as needed. And, with that, we’re on to the next chapter. Go have some celebratory

raisins; you’re doing great.

Chapter 4: Making PHPUnit Less

Verbose

Importing Assertions as Functions

There’s no denying that $this->assertEquals can get verbose, when you have to write it repeatedly.

Though we won’t be using this technique throughout the book, if you wish, you can import all of

the assertions as simple functions. This, in effect, allows you to remove the $this portion.

1 $name = 'Doug';

2 assertEquals('Doug', $name);

If you installed PHPUnit through Composer, then the list of functions will be stored in:

1 vendor/phpunit/phpunit/PHPUnit/Framework/Assert/Functions.php

Simply require that file at the top of your test class (or at the top of Laravel’s TestCase), and you

may now reference these assertions as global functions.

1 <?php

3 require_once 'vendor/phpunit/phpunit/PHPUnit/Framework/Assert/Functions.php\

4 ';

6 class PracticeTest extends TestCase {

7 public function testAdd()

8 {

9 $sum = add(10, 5);

11 assertEquals(15, $sum);

12 }

13 }

Chapter 4: Making PHPUnit Less Verbose 48

Applying the Laravel Style to PHPUnit

Chances are, Laravel appeals to you so much because it can be read like simple English. Coding is

complicated enough; we don’t need to introduce unnecessary jargon to make the process even more

confusing! Though the misinformed will criticize Laravel for using too many statics, if they would

take a closer look, they would realize that facades allow for a static-like API, while instantiating

the applicable classes and injecting any dependencies behind the scenes. This allows for easy-to-use

code, such as:

1 Redirect::route();

2 Form::open();

3 Validator::attempt();

4 View::make();

The only problem is that, when it comes to testing, we’re still limited to PHPUnit’s verbose syntax

that doesn’t blend with Laravel as elegantly as we might hope. This is why I recently released two

wrappers classes²⁰ around PHPUnit’s assertion library that bring the Laravel feel to your testing:

Should and Assert. With these two wrappers, which can be downloaded through Composer, your

assertions will take the form of:

1 Should::equal(4, 2 + 2);

2 Should::beTrue(true);

4 Assert::greaterThan(20, 21);

Behind the scenes, the applicable PHPUnit assertions are still being called. These wrappers simply

provide a more expressive interface for writing tests. Though I won’t be using this package in this

book, if you’d like to use it in your own projects, update your composer.json to reference the

phpunit-wrappers package, like so:

1 {

2 "require-dev": {

3 "way/phpunit-wrappers": "dev-master"

4 }

5 }

Next, run composer install --dev or composer update --dev to download the package from

GitHub into your vendor directory. Finally, import the Should or Assert class (or both) into your

test file, and have fun!

²⁰https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Test-Helpers

Chapter 4: Making PHPUnit Less Verbose 49

1 <?php

3 use Way\Tests\Assert;

4 use Way\Tests\Should;

6 class PracticeTest extends TestCase

7 {

8 public function testItWorks()

9 {

10 $name = 'Joe';

12 Should::equal('Joe', $name);

13 Assert::equals('Joe', $name);

14 }

15 }

If you want to create a custom alias for a PHPUnit assertion, doing so is a cinch.

1 Should::getInstance()->registerAliases([

2 'eq' => 'assertEquals'

3 ]);

Now, when you call Should::eq(), behind the scenes, the arguments that you pass to it will be sent

through to PHPUnit’s native assertEquals method. Nifty!

Please note that, while I favor many of the tricks outlined in this chapter, for the purposes

of the book, they won’t be used. Let’s stick with the standard API.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101

In Chapter 1, we took the first steps toward “slow and steady wins the race” testing. Let’s continue

on this path.

My Struggles

One unfortunate truth of learning how to test is that so much of the information on the web and in

books contradicts one another. As a student, I’d read one article, think I had a decent grasp on the

terminology and rules, and then move on to the next article that, in many ways, preached an entirely

different set of guidelines. Imagine learning what two plus two equals, when all the resources provide

different answers?

What’s the reason for this dissonance in the community? Well, it’s really quite simple: we’re still

figuring this stuff out! Even though the concept of testing software goes as far back as the seventies

- during the days of Smalltalk²¹ - the truth is that, even today, the development community remains

divided on many issues, including such basic things as whether testing is beneficial. As a result,

as you continue learning beyond this book, be prepared to discover different methodologies and

terminologies, dependent upon a number of factors, including the article’s publish date, which

language it was written for, and what belief system its writer has.

The differing view points were only the beginning of my struggles, though. As I continued digging

in, I didn’t yet understand or appreciate the various types of testing. As such, I’d learn from one

source that testing in isolation was paramount, and then move on to find countless other articles,

where the authors seemed to ignore this rule, in favor of touching every part of the system. Of course,

now, I realize that these articles focused on different types of testing (acceptance or functional vs.

unit), but, back then, I was dumbfounded and overwhelmed.

I suppose what I want you to understand and appreciate is that we’re still in the early days of test-

driven development, and testing in general. Even worse, while the Ruby on Rails community is a

culture that has widely embraced and evangelized testing, the same unfortunately can’t be said for

the PHP world. But, we’re fixing that, right? The tides are turning; I hope you’re on board!

In this chapter, we’ll focus exclusively on unit testing with test-driven development. If you’ve come

across other types of testing in your web travels - perhaps ones that do hit databases and query

APIs - rest assure that they absolutely have their place. In fact, in real world projects, you’ll have a

number of test suites, each which exercises your application in slightly different ways. That being

said, this chapter is not concerned with those other styles of testing; we’ll get to them in due time.

For now, though, and as a first step into the testing waters, let’s focus exclusively on one object at a

time.

²¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 51

Unit Testing

Okay, it’s time to dig into the process of unit testing, not our models or controllers (we’ll get to those

soon), but simple functions and utility classes. This will give us the perfect excuse to learn more

about proper test organization.

Unit testing refers to the smallest testable piece of an application. If I feed a method this

set of data, then, in return, I expect that. Nothing beyond that class should be touched (if

we’re following the London School of TDD). Not the database, not a single dependency.

This is referred to as testing in isolation.

Arrange, Act, Assert

Preparing a unit test can be reduced to three simple actions.

1. Arrange: Set the stage, instantiate objects, pass in mocks.

2. Act: Execute the thing that you wish to test.

3. Assert: Compare your expected output to what was returned.

As you’ll find, every test follows this basic flow. Here’s an example:

1 public function testFetchesItemsInArrayUntilKey()

2 {

3 // Arrange

4 $names = ['Taylor', 'Dayle', 'Matthew', 'Shawn', 'Neil'];

6 // Act

7 $result = array_until('Matthew', $names);

9 // Assert

10 $expected = ['Taylor', 'Dayle'];

11 $this->assertEquals($expected, $result);

12 }

If you pick up a BDD-specific book, however, you might come across slightly different terminology

that translates to the same thing: Given, When, Then.

Given this set of data, when I perform this action, then I expect that response.

Here’s a second test for illustration purposes:

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 52

1 /**

2 * @expectedException InvalidArgumentException

3 */

4 public function testThrowsExceptionIfKeyDoesNotExist()

5 {

6 // Given this set of data

7 $names = ['Taylor', 'Dayle', 'Matthew', 'Shawn', 'Neil'];

9 // When I call the until function and

10 // specify a different key

11 $result = array_until('Bob', $names);

13 // Then an exception should be thrown (see doc-block)

14 }

Though the terminology is different, this Given/When/Then syntax is a bit more readable, and

encourages you to describe the behavior of your code. Also, note that each step in the cycle is quite

small. If the ratio becomes lopsided, it’s a good indication that refactoring is in order.

Finally, if you’re curious, here’s the code to make both tests pass:

1 function array_until($stopPoint, $arr)

2 {

3 $index = array_search($stopPoint, $arr);

5 if (false === $index)

6 {

7 throw new InvalidArgumentException('Key does not exist in array');

8 }

10 return array_slice($arr, 0, $index);

11 }

Testing in Isolation

A core fundamental to successful unit testing is to test in isolation. This means that all outside

dependencies which aren’t directly related to the thing that you’re attempting to test should be

stubbed or mocked (more on these terms later). For example, when unit testing a model, you

shouldn’t, in the process, be hitting the database. You shouldn’t hit a web service. You shouldn’t even

reference one of your other classes. Instead, stick with one object at a time. You can flex multiple

parts of the system in the future, when you write integration tests.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 53

Tests Should Not Be Order-Dependent

Another rule of unit testing is that your tests should never be dependent upon previous tests. For

example, beginning developers will often set state in one test, and then continue to depend upon

that same state for assertions in future tests. Don’t do this; it’s an anti-pattern.

What you want to strive for is tests which can easily be executed independently from one another

without causing failure. An easy way to detect this is if a particular test passes when the entire

suite is executed, but fails when triggered by itself. In these situations, the failure is due to the test’s

dependency on some previously set state. Not good.

Tip: Each test should recreate the world in which it acts upon. Or, in other words, never

depend on test order.

Test-Driven Development

Test-Driven Development is an agile software pattern in which a developer prepares a test before

a single line of production code is written. Popularized by Kent Beck, in addition to ensuring that

your code works as expected, this methodology forces you to think before coding. While a cowboy

approach may once have been the norm in our industry, as a collective, we’re rapidly moving away

from it, in favor of a mature, intentional development process.

TDD declares three core rules:

1. Write a Failing Test: You may not write a single line of production code unless a failing test

is present.

2. Make it Pass: Once a test has been defined, you may only write the minimum amount of

code to make the test pass - even if this means faking a method’s return value. Approach each

failing test from the perspective of, “what is the simplest way to make this test pass?”

3. Refactor: Only when the tests have passed (they return green) may you refactor your code.

Behavior-Driven Development

In addition to TDD, or test-driven development, you’ll often hear about a seemingly different form

of testing, referred to as behavior-driven development. As it turns out, if you write TDD well - by

describing the behavior of your code - then chances are, you’re following the rules of BDD. With this

style of coding, you describe how the SUT (system under test) should behave. Once you’ve written

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 54

the minimum amount of code to make that behavior work, then the feature has been implemented.

In this book, when I refer to TDD, I’m also referring to BDD. The two are not mutually exclusive.

One is merely the other in its best form.

Testing Functions

Before we tackle the calculator, first, let’s test-drive a simple function.

In real-world applications, you’ll be testing logic from external sources, such as a function, class,

or web service. To take a first step into these waters, we’ll test a helper function for a Laravel that

should generate an anchor tag for, called link_to.

In fact, Laravel 4 recently implemented this very function. Nonetheless, let’s rebuild it

for education purposes.

Additionally, we’ll embrace a TDD (test-driven development) approach, and write the test first.

1 public function testGeneratesAnchorTag()

2 {

3 $actual = link_to('dogs/1', 'Show Dog');

4 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

6 $this->assertEquals($expect, $actual);

7 }

Hopefully, this is beginning to make sense. Notice how we interact with the function before writing

any production code. This way, we’re never constrained by existing code. Or, in other words, how

would you want to achieve this functionality in a perfect world? Write it as such, and then it’s your

responsibility to organize the necessary production code to make that possible.

In this case, we need a link_to(URL, BODY) function that should generate the HTML string that is

stored in the $expect variable above.

1 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

Remember that we shouldn’t be searching for “localhost:8000,” when running command line tests.

Then, we write the assertion and run the test.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 55

1 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

2 $actual = link_to('dogs/1', 'Show Dog');

4 $this->assertEquals($expect, $actual);

Return to the command line, and execute the test.

1 phpunit

Fig 1.3 - The first failing test.

The wonderful thing about TDD is that it turns your coding process into a game. Not sure what to

do next? Run the tests, and PHPUnit will tell you! TDD is about tiny, tiny steps. In this case, an error

is displayed: Call to undefined function link_to(). There’s our next step!

Often, you’ll find that it’s helpful to write the class or function under test just above the test class,

like so:

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 56

1 function link_to() {}

3 class FunctionsTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testBuildsAnchorTag()

5 {

6 $actual = link_to('dogs/1', 'Show Dog');

7 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

9 $this->assertEquals($expect, $actual);

10 }

11 }

Once finished, you can always copy it to the proper file.

Tip: In the early testing stages, make simplicity a priority.

Having said that, to mimic a real-world scenario, this time, we’ll take the latter approach. Let’s

assume that we have a helpers.php file within the app/ folder. Think of this file as one that contains

a variety of simple global functions, which can be used throughout your application.

Begin by creating the file, app/helpers.php.

1 // app/helpers.php

2 function link_to($url, $body)

3 {

5 }

Though we could simply require this file within the test class (and probably should at this early

stage), let’s instead try to embrace autoloading. Composer isn’t a mind reader, though; we need to

instruct it to load this new file. Luckily, that’s a cinch. Return to composer.json and specify a new

files array within the autoload object. Here’s how your Composer file should look:

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 57

1 // composer.json

2 {

3 "require": {

4 "laravel/framework": "4.0.*"

5 },

6 "require-dev": {

7 "phpunit/phpunit": "3.7.*"

8 },

9 "autoload": {

10 "classmap": [

11 "app/commands",

12 "app/controllers",

13 "app/models",

14 "app/database/migrations",

15 "app/database/seeds",

16 "app/tests/TestCase.php"

17 ],

18 "files": [

19 "app/helpers.php"

20 ]

21 },

22 "minimum-stability": "dev"

23 }

Remember: we can’t add app/helpers.php to the classmap, as it’s not a class. In these situations,

the best choice is to instead use the files array, as illustrated above.

Next, as should be done whenever this file is updated, instruct Composer to dump a new list of all

the files that should be autoloaded.

1 composer dump-autoload -o

Tip: When running the dump-autoload command, always pass the -o (optimize) flag.

If we execute phpunit again, we’ll receive the next step.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 58

1 phpunit

3 There was 1 failure:

5 1) PracticeTest::testBuildsAnchorTag

6 Failed asserting that null matches expected '<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show\

7 Dog</a>'.

Aha; so it seems that the test expected the anchor tag string, however, instead, only null was

returned. Let’s slime it as the first step.

1 // app/helpers.php

3 function link_to($url, $body)

4 {

5 return "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

6 }

Slime vs. Generalize

Throughout this book, you’ll frequently see references to the terms, slime and generalize.

Slime

Definition: Slime is nothing more than a bit of jargon that refers to returning a dummy

value for the sole purpose of making a test pass. More traditionally, this is referred to as

faking it. Feel free to use these terms interchangeably.

The priniciples of test-driven development dictate that tiny steps should be taken when coding. In

other words, what is the simplest way to make a test pass? Initially, sliming it just might be the

answer. Though hard-coding a returned value might seem foolish to you, the ultimate goal is to

ensure that your code never becomes more complicated than is necessary to make the tests pass.

Generalize

Clearly, sliming is temporary. The key is to determine when it’s appropriate to generalize.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 59

Definition: Think of the term, generalize, as a way to specify when it’s necessary to

remove slime, in favor of real production code.

Perhaps an example is in order. Imagine a basic add function. A first assertion might be to ensure

that, if you pass two and two, then the returned value from the function will, in fact, be four. What

is the easiest possible solution to this assertion? Anyone, anyone?

The solution is to slime it, and hardcode the returned value, like so:

1 function add() {

2 return 4;

3 }

Once you write a second test - perhaps, passing three and three - a hard-coded value will no longer

suffice, at which point generalizing will become a necessity. See how that works?

Calculating (excuse the pun) when to generalize is something that each developer must determine

on their own.

Making the Test Pass

Returning to the link_to test, at this point we have two courses of action when our tests return red

(or fail):

1. Change the message

2. Make it green

Let’s remove the slime, and fetch the URL dynamically with Laravel’s native url function.

1 // app/helpers.php

3 function link_to($url, $body)

4 {

5 $url = url($url);

6 return "<a href='{$url}'>{$body}</a>";

7 }

Run the tests, and it passes!

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 60

1 phpunit

3 OK (1 test, 1 assertion)

Did You Know? Laravel, itself, offers a helpers file. In addition to the helpful url()

function used above (simply a convenience that maps to URL::to(), it offers a number

of particularly useful array operation commands.

Let’s take things one step further. It might be nice if the link_to function offered a way to specify

attributes for the anchor tag as well, such as a class or id. To make this a reality, first add a new

test and specify the desired end result.

1 <?php

3 class PracticeTest extends TestCase {

5 public function testBuildsAnchorTag()

6 {

7 $actual = link_to('/dogs/1', 'Show Dog');

8 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>";

10 $this->assertEquals($expect, $actual);

11 }

13 public function testAppliesAttributesUsingArray()

14 {

15 $actual = link_to('/dogs/1', 'Show Dog', ['class' => 'button']);

16 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1' class='button'>Show Dog</a>";

18 $this->assertEquals($expect, $actual);

19 }

20 }

As a basic rule of thumb, each test should represent but one path through your code.

What’s the next step? Run the tests and find out, fool.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 61

1 phpunit

3 1) PracticeTest::testBuildsAnchorTag

4 Failed asserting that two strings are equal.

5 --- Expected

6 +++ Actual

7 @@ @@

8 -'<a href='http://:/dogs/1' class='button'>Show Dog</a>'

9 +'<a href='http://:/dogs/1'>Show Dog</a>'

Got it? Let’s make this new test pass. We’ll skip the sliming this time.

1 <?php // app/helpers.php

3 function link_to($url, $body, $parameters = null)

4 {

5 $url = url($url);

6 $attributes = '';

8 // If the user specified any parameters, then

9 // parse them and append to returned string

10 if ($parameters)

11 {

12 foreach($parameters as $attribute => $value)

13 {

14 $attributes .= " {$attribute}='{$value}'";

15 }

16 }

18 return "<a href='{$url}'{$attributes}>{$body}</a>";

19 }

Run the tests, and…

1 OK (2 tests, 2 assertions)

It passes! Now that we have a passing test, we can move on to any necessary refactoring, as allowed

by the TDD pattern.

In this case, I happen to know that Laravel’s HtmlBuilder class (you know it as the Html facade)

offers an attributes static method that will handle the parsing. Let’s refrain from reinventing the

wheel by instead leveraging that implementation.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 62

1 function link_to($url, $body, $parameters = null)

2 {

3 $url = url($url);

5 // If the user specified any parameters, then

6 // parse them and append to returned string

7 $attributes = $parameters ? Html::attributes($parameters) : '';

9 return "<a href='{$url}'{$attributes}>{$body}</a>";

10 }

Running the tests should return one small quirk.

1 1) PracticeTest::testGeneratesAnchorTagAcceptsAttributesArray

2 Failed asserting that two strings are equal.

3 --- Expected

4 +++ Actual

5 @@ @@

6 -'<a href='http://:/dogs/1' class='button'>Show Dog</a>'

7 +'<a href='http://:/dogs/1' class="button">Show Dog</a>'

Luckily, in this case, the Html::attributes() method simply uses double quotes, when our test

expected singles. That’s a non-issue and an easy fix: update the test’s $expect variable, like so:

1 $expect = "<a href='http://:/dogs/1' class=\"button\">Show Dog</a>";

And that should be enough to give you a passing test! Congratulations! You just used test-driven

development to write a helpful function that can be used within your views. That’s all TDD is. Don’t

complicate it any more than that. Once again, the process is:

• Write a test that defines how you want to interact with your code

• Watch it fail

• Write the necessary production code to make it pass

• Refactor

Important: This form of testing conforms more to the Chicago style of TDD. There are

those who would argue that the url function that was triggered inside link_to should

have been mocked; we’re testing link_to, not url. There absolutely is value to this

approach, and you’ll learn more about it (London school of TDD) soon. But, for now,

just as TDD requires small steps, so does the learning process.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 63

Testing Classes

The most common introduction to unit testing generally revolves around the creation of a calculator.

I know what you’re thinking: “I hate calculator testing tutorials! I get it, trust me; nobody builds

basic calculators in real life. Nonetheless, there’s a reason why they’re used so frequently (along

with car examples). A calculator consists of basic logic that every one of us knows by heart. Two

plus two will always equal four. By removing the barrier to entry, you can dedicate your entire focus

to learning the assertions, rather than worrying about production code logic. Like I said, though, I

feel your pain. Rest assured that we’ll dig into lots of fancy stuff over the course of this book. But

one step at a time, padawan!

Unit testing a class is no different than simple functions: instantiate the class, call the desired method,

and write an assertion. To finish up this chapter, let’s use TDD to write the obligatory calculator class.

We’ll tackle this in two sections:

1. What is the simplest way to handle basic arithmetic?

2. How can we leverage polymorphism to allow for a more extensible calculator?

This section will be framework-agnostic, so, if working along, create an empty directory on your

desktop, and add a CalculatorTest.php file with the first test.

1 <?php // CalculatorTest.php

3 class CalculatorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testInstance()

5 {

6 new Calculator;

7 }

8 }

Immediately upon running the test - phpunit CalculatorTest.php - we’ll see:

1 Class 'Calculator' not found

Of course; create Calculator.php within the project root. We’re not worried about folder organiza-

tion for this simple demo.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 64

1 <?php // Calculator.php

3 class Calculator {

5 }

Next, while the easiest way to include this class is to require it at the top like we did earlier, let’s

stay in the habit of embracing Composer for autoloading classes.

Create a new composer.json file, and specify that Calculator.php should be autoloaded.

1 {

2 "autoload": {

3 "classmap": [

4 "Calculator.php"

5 ]

6 }

7 }

A simple composer install and composer dump should add this file to the autoloader. Now, pass the

--bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php option when calling phpunit, or create a configuration file. To

keep things simple, we’ll stick with the former.

1 phpunit --bootstrap="vendor/autoload.php" CalculatorTest.php

And we’re green! What do we require from this class next? Well, I’d like it to keep track of the

current result at all times; it should default to 0 upon instantiation. How might we represent that as

a test?

1 <?php // CalculatorTest.php

3 class CalculatorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testResultDefaultsToZero()

5 {

6 $calc = new Calculator;

7 $this->assertSame(0, $calc->getResult());

8 }

9 }

Tip: When you require strict comparison, always opt for assertSame over assertEquals.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 65

PHPUnit will inform us that the getResult method does not yet exist, so let’s create it.

1 <?php // Calculator.php

3 class Calculator {

4 public function getResult()

5 {

6 return 0;

7 }

8 }

Why hardcode 0? Have you forgotten already? We’re slimin’ it old school. Don’t worry; we’ll fix it

soon. Until then, though, I’d like to test an add method. When I call this method, the value specified

should be added to a property that keeps a tally of the current total.

1 <?php // CalculatorTest.php

3 class CalculatorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testResultDefaultsToZero()

5 {

6 $calc = new Calculator;

7 $this->assertSame(0, $calc->getResult());

8 }

10 public function testAddsNumbers()

11 {

12 $calc = new Calculator;

13 $calc->add(5);

14 $this->assertEquals(5, $calc->getResult());

15 }

16 }

To make this second test pass, we’ll need to introduce a $result property to keep track of the current

total. We’ll also want to remove the slime²².

²²https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/774859/Laravel-Decoded-Stuff/slimer.jpg

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 66

1 // Calculator.php

3 class Calculator {

4 protected $result = 0;

6 public function add($num)

7 {

8 $this->result += $num;

9 }

11 public function getResult()

12 {

13 return $this->result;

14 }

15 }

Already, though, I’m seeing a potential snag. What if you pass a non-numeric value to the add

method, such as an array or string? In those situations, I want to ensure that an exception is thrown.

Tip: Think of exceptions as your way, as the developer, of saying, “I take exception to

this action.”

To throw an exception, if following the rules of TDD, we can’t write any production code until a

failing test is written.

1 // CalculatorTest.php

3 /**

4 * @expectedException InvalidArgumentException

5 */

6 public function testRequiresNumericValue()

7 {

8 $calc = new Calculator;

9 $calc->add('five');

10 }

Above, we’re using doc-blocks to inform PHPUnit that, given the provided code, we expect an

exception to be thrown. Without altering any production code, of course, no exception will be

thrown, which will cause this test to fail.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 67

1 1) CalculatorTest::testRequiresNumericValue

2 Failed asserting that exception of type "InvalidArgumentException" is throw\

3 n.

Let’s fix that.

1 // Calculator.php

3 public function add($number)

4 {

5 if ( ! is_numeric($number))

6 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

8 $this->result += $number;

9 }

Excellent - that was easy! Next, it would be helpful if I could pass a variable number of arguments

to the add method, such as add(2, 2, 5).

1 // CalculatorTest.php

3 public function testAcceptsMultipleArgs()

4 {

5 $calc = new Calculator;

6 $calc->add(1, 2, 3, 4);

8 $this->assertEquals(10, $calc->getResult());

9 $this->assertNotEquals(

10 'Snoop Doggy Dogg and Dr. Dre is at the door',

11 $calc->getResult()

12 ); // jokes, jokes, jokes

13 }

Is this process starting to make sense, now? Write a test that defines what you wish you could do,

watch the test fail, and then write the necessary production code to make it pass. I’m trying to drill

this into your head, if you hadn’t realized! Even better, it’s fun (at least for us).

Here’s the modified code (or at least a first draft) to allow for passing multiple numbers to add.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 68

1 <?php // Calculator.php

3 class Calculator {

4 protected $result = 0;

6 public function add()

7 {

8 foreach (func_get_args() as $num)

9 {

10 if ( ! is_numeric($num))

11 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

13 $this->result += $num;

14 }

15 }

17 public function getResult()

18 {

19 return $this->result;

20 }

21 }

This time, we filter through all of the passed arguments, and, as long as the value is numeric, we

add it to the $result property. This will return the tests to green, but I’m beginning to worry a bit.

What about when we implement the subtract, multiply, and divide methods? This may result in

a lot of repeated code, breaking the don’t repeat yourself (DRY) pattern. For example, let’s add the

necessary functionality to subtract numbers.

First, the test:

1 // CalculatorTest.php

3 public function testSubtract()

4 {

5 $calc = new Calculator;

6 $calc->subtract(4);

8 $this->assertEquals(-4, $calc->getResult());

9 }

And then the production code to make it pass.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 69

1 // Calculator.php

3 public function subtract()

4 {

5 foreach(func_get_args() as $number)

6 {

7 if (! is_numeric($number))

8 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

10 $this->result -= $number;

11 }

12 }

Tip: When you find yourself copying and pasting code from one method to another, this

is a tell-tale sign that refactoring is required.

Let’s take a break, while the tests are green, and DRY up both the tests and production code.

Refactoring the Tests

Did you notice how, for each test, the Calculator was instantiated? Things like this are better

extracted to the setUp method, which will fire before each test runs.

1 public function setUp()

2 {

3 $this->calc = new Calculator;

4 }

At this point, our test class should look like:

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 70

1 <?php // CalculatorTest.php

3 class CalculatorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

5 public function setUp()

6 {

7 $this->calc = new Calculator;

8 }

10 public function testResultDefaultsToZero()

11 {

12 $this->assertSame(0, $this->calc->getResult());

13 }

15 /**

16 * @expectedException InvalidArgumentException

17 */

18 public function testRequiresNumericValue()

19 {

20 $this->calc->add('five');

21 }

23 public function testAcceptsMultipleArgs()

24 {

25 $this->calc->add(1, 2, 3, 4);

27 $this->assertEquals(10, $this->calc->getResult());

28 $this->assertNotEquals(

29 'Snoop Doggy Dogg and Dr. Dre is at the door',

30 $this->calc->getResult()

31 ); // jokes, jokes, jokes

32 }

34 public function testAddsNumbers()

35 {

36 $this->calc->add(5);

38 $this->assertEquals(5, $this->calc->getResult());

39 }

41 public function testSubtractsNumbers()

42 {

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 71

43 $this->calc->subtract(4);

45 $this->assertEquals(-4, $this->calc->getResult());

46 }

48 }

Refactoring the Production Code

Now, on to the production code. Rather than filtering through all arguments, determining whether

they are numeric, and performing the arithmetic, as a first step, we’ll extract this logic away to a

couple of dedicated methods: calculateAll and calculate.

1 <?php // Calculator.php

3 class Calculator {

5 protected $result = 0;

7 public function getResult()

8 {

9 return $this->result;

10 }

12 public function add()

13 {

14 $this->calculateAll(func_get_args(), '+');

15 }

17 public function subtract()

18 {

19 $this->calculateAll(func_get_args(), '-');

20 }

22 protected function calculateAll(array $nums, $symbol)

23 {

24 foreach ($nums as $num)

25 {

26 $this->calculate($num, $symbol);

27 }

28 }

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 72

30 protected function calculate($num, $symbol)

31 {

32 if ( ! is_numeric($num))

33 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

35 switch ($symbol)

36 {

37 case '+':

38 $this->result += $num;

39 break;

41 case '-':

42 $this->result -= $num;

43 break;

44 }

45 }

47 }

Though the code above does introduce a couple more methods, it lays the structure for further

complexity in the class. Now, the calculate method handles all logic for performing the arithmetic.

Polymorphism

If that switch statement doesn’t feel right to you, have a celebratory Fig Newton and pat yourself on

the back. Just about any time that you use a switch statement, your class is secretly screaming for

polymorphism. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but use this as a guideline. Too many

conditionals are a cause for concern.

Let’s redesign. The problem with the current setup is that every time we want to add a new operation

type (add, subtract, multiply), we must add another method to the class and update the switch

statement. Very quickly, this class could become unwieldy. It would be better if the class could call

a method that performs the arithmetic, without having to be concerned over how that operation is

performed. This is where polymorphism comes into play.

It looks like we’ll need to design our calculator a bit differently. This is specifically why

it’s important to think before you begin coding.

Create an interface, Operation, that contains a single method.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 73

1 interface Operation {

2 /**

3 * Perform the arithmetic

4 *

5 * @param integer $num

6 * @param integer $current

7 * @return integer

8 */

9 public function run($num, $current);

10 }

The reason why coding to an interface is good practice is because the Calculator class will be calling

methods on injected objects. We need to be sure that this run() method is available. By requesting

an implementation of the Operation class, we can have complete assurance that such a method will

be available at run-time.

Next, we’d create a new class for each type of operation. Here’s one for addition:

1 class Addition implements Operation {

2 public function run($num, $current)

3 {

4 return $current + $num;

5 }

6 }

Notice how simple that is to read? The best part is that it’s a cinch to test. That’s the

idea!

Now that we have one implementation of the Operation interface, we next need to update the tests

to reflect this design change.

1 public function testAddsNumbers()

2 {

3 $this->calc->setOperands(5);

4 $this->calc->setOperation(new Addition);

5 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

7 $this->assertEquals(5, $result);

8 }

To make this test pass, the production code, also, needs to be adjusted, like so:

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 74

1 <?php

3 class Calculator {

5 protected $result = 0;

6 protected $operands = [];

7 protected $operation;

9 public function getResult()

10 {

11 return $this->result;

12 }

14 public function setOperands()

15 {

16 $this->operands = func_get_args();

17 }

19 public function setOperation(Operation $operation)

20 {

21 $this->operation = $operation;

22 }

24 public function calculate()

25 {

26 foreach ($this->operands as $num)

27 {

28 if ( ! is_numeric($num))

29 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

31 $this->result = $this->operation->run($num, $this->result);

32 }

34 return $this->result;

35 }

37 }

Admittedly, this is slightly more complex, but it’ll pay off in spades when it comes time to extend

the functionality.

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 75

Extensibility

To multiply numbers as well, the Calculator doesn’t even need to be touched. Simply create a new

Multiplication class that implements the interface that we created earlier, and pass it through.

Calculator will then call its method without knowing how it behaves. This is the beauty of

polymorphism.

Of course, we start with a test to verify when our new multiplication feature is finished.

1 public function testMultipliesNumbers()

2 {

3 $this->calc->setOperands(3, 3, 3);

4 $this->calc->setOperation(new Multiplication);

5 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

7 $this->assertEquals(27, $result);

8 }

Only then, when we have a failing test, would we work on the production code. Right?

1 class Multiplication implements Operation {

2 public function run($num, $current)

3 {

4 // Any number times 0 is 0

5 if ($current === 0) return $num;

7 return $current * $num;

8 }

9 }

That’s it! A simple bit of logic, and the tests pass.

Mocks

If you’ve been watching closely, you might have noticed that we broke one of our rules. If unit

testing requires isolation, we’re cheating when the calculate method calls those other classes. It’s

important to realize that there are two schools of thought on this issue (often labeled Chicago vs.

London TDD, as noted earlier in this chapter). My personal recommendation is to push for as much

isolation as possible. We’ve been somewhat lax in this chapter, only because I’m trying to ease you

into the process of testing. We haven’t yet gotten to stubs and mocks.

Having said that, if you want a quick demonstration for how you might test this class in true

isolation, see below. Please note that this code leverages a popular PHP mocking framework, called

Mockery. An entire chapter of the book is dedicated to it, so you’ll come to know it well!

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 76

1 public function testAddsNumbers()

2 {

3 // Mock all outside objects.

4 // We're not interested in testing those.

5 // They should have their own tests.

6 $mock = Mockery::mock('Addition');

8 // All we care about is verifying that

9 // the proper method was called.

10 $mock->shouldReceive('run')

11 ->once()

12 ->with(5, 0)

13 ->andReturn(5);

15 $this->calc->setOperands(5);

17 // Rather than new Addition, we

18 // pass in the mock object

19 $this->calc->setOperation($mock);

21 // And then it's business per usual!

22 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

24 $this->assertEquals(5, $result);

25 }

Remember: this methodology is only effective if the class that has been mocked, too, has tests! If we

can prove that the Addition class works perfectly, then there’s absolutely no reason to test it twice.

1 <?php

3 class AdditionTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

5 public function testFindsTheSumOfNumbers()

6 {

7 $addition = new Addition;

8 $sum = $addition->run(5, 0);

10 $this->assertEquals(5, $sum);

11 }

13 }

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 77

Or, another way of thinking about this is, if the Addition class does happen to break at some point,

because we used mocks, the Calculator class will still return green. That’s what we want.

Tip: An added bonus to using mocks in situations such as this is that they allow you

to drastically reduce the number of tests. When mocking the operation class, we no

longer need tests in CalculatorTest for verifying addition, subtraction, multiplication,

etc. Each of those implementations will have its own tests.

Project Complete

With just a bit of effort, we have a well-tested class for performing basic arithmetic. You’d certainly

want to add more to this, but I’ll leave that part in your hands as home-work.

So what was this all for? Why dedicate so much of a unit testing chapter to understanding

polymorphism? When building testable applications, I want you to break each class down to its core

responsibility. An Addition class is responsibile for adding numbers; a Subtract class is responsible

for subtracting. Not only does this approach allow for cleaner and more extensible code, but it also

makes the process of testing significantly easier. Memorize this:

The smaller the class, the easier it is to test.

Hopefully, even though we used a generic calculator as the example, you were able to learn a variety

of new techniques, including unit testing, the single responsibility priniciple, polymorphism, and a

touch of Mockery. But, there’s much more to learn. As Happy²³ would say, we’ve only just begun.

Final Source

First, the CalculatorTest. Don’t forget: once you learn more about mocks and stubs, the tests below

can be improved, refactored, and reduced. Refer to the Mocks section earlier in this chapter for a

teaser.

²³https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/774859/Laravel-Decoded-Stuff/happy.png

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 78

1 <?php // CalculatorTest.php

3 class CalculatorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

5 public function setUp()

6 {

7 $this->calc = new Calculator;

8 }

10 public function testResultDefaultsToZero()

11 {

12 $this->assertSame(0, $this->calc->getResult());

13 }

15 public function testAddsNumbers()

16 {

17 $this->calc->setOperands(5);

18 $this->calc->setOperation(new Addition);

19 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

21 $this->assertEquals(5, $result);

22 }

24 /**

25 * @expectedException InvalidArgumentException

26 */

27 public function testRequiresNumericValue()

28 {

29 $this->calc->setOperands('five');

30 $this->calc->setOperation(new Addition);

31 $this->calc->calculate();

32 }

34 public function testAcceptsMultipleArgs()

35 {

36 $this->calc->setOperands(1, 2, 3, 4);

37 $this->calc->setOperation(new Addition);

38 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

40 $this->assertEquals(10, $result);

41 $this->assertNotEquals(

42 'Snoop Doggy Dogg and Dr. Dre is at the door',

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 79

43 $result

44 ); // jokes, jokes, jokes

45 }

47 // Notice how these next two tests are redundant, now that

48 // we're using polymorphism. They're unnecessary.

49 public function testSubtractsNumbers()

50 {

51 $this->calc->setOperands(4);

52 $this->calc->setOperation(new Subtraction);

53 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

55 $this->assertEquals(-4, $result);

56 }

58 public function testMultipliesNumbers()

59 {

60 $this->calc->setOperands(3, 3, 3);

61 $this->calc->setOperation(new Multiplication);

62 $result = $this->calc->calculate();

64 $this->assertEquals(27, $result);

65 }

67 }

And the Calculator class, itself. Please note that the various classes have been grouped for

convenience. In your projects, each class should be contained within its own file. The only exception

to this rule, in this author’s opinion, is when you have a class that is only applicable within the

context of another. This can be applied to exception classes and value objects.

1 <?php // Calculator.php

3 interface Operation {

4 public function run($num, $current);

5 }

7 class Addition implements Operation {

8 public function run($num, $current)

9 {

10 return $current + $num;

11 }

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 80

12 }

14 class Multiplication implements Operation {

15 public function run($num, $current)

16 {

17 // Any number times 0 is 0

18 if ($current === 0) return $num;

20 return $current * $num;

21 }

22 }

24 class Subtraction implements Operation {

26 public function run($num, $current)

27 {

28 return $current - $num;

29 }

30 }

32 class Calculator {

34 protected $result = 0;

36 public function getResult()

37 {

38 return $this->result;

39 }

41 public function setOperands()

42 {

43 $this->operands = func_get_args();

44 }

46 public function setOperation(Operation $operation)

47 {

48 $this->operation = $operation;

49 }

51 public function calculate()

52 {

53 foreach ($this->operands as $num)

Chapter 5: Unit Testing 101 81

54 {

55 if ( ! is_numeric($num))

56 throw new InvalidArgumentException;

58 $this->result = $this->operation->run($num, $this->result);

59 }

61 return $this->result;

62 }

64 }

Summary

Plenty of unit testing introductions will overwhelm you with theory and jargon. But who does this

serve? It’s not dissimilar to teaching basic Math by beginning with Geometry - it’s simply not the

right way to go about things. I’m reminded of a quote from the movie, Contact.

“This was just the first step; in time you’ll take another.”

Yes, folks, the movie quotes will continue. This subject matter is just too dry not to sporadically

throw in some geeky movie references.

Chapter 6: Testing Models

You’ve surely heard the phrase, “fat model, skinny controller” before. If not, this is simply a pattern

which dicates that it’s better to keep your controllers as minimal as possible: handle responses, send

messages to the domain, load views. I often compare controllers to the cops who direct traffic, when

the power goes out - because that’s what they do: direct traffic. Calculations or operations of any

real complexity should be placed within a model or service. For this reason, it’s crucial that your

models be fully tested.

What to Test

I’ve drilled this into your head multiple times now. The basic rule is that everything that has an

opportunity to break should be tested. More directly, plan on, at the very least, testing:

• Validations

• Scopes

• Accessors and Mutators

• Associations/Relationships

• Custom Methods

Accessors and Mutators

Though opinions vary, my recommendation is to omit tests for basic things, such as getters and

setters. However, there’s one exception to this rule: if any logic is performed - beyond “set this

property on the object” - then, yes, do prepare tests to verify that it works as expected.

In Laravel, to transform a model’s attributes when getting or setting, we use the following syntax

(using age as the name of the attribute):

1 // Accessor

2 public function getAgeAttribute($age) {}

4 // Mutator

5 public function setAgeAttribute($age) {}

This can be particularly helpful when a value needs to be manipulated in some way. Here are a

couple of examples.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 83

Cat Years Example

What if, for some ridiculous reason, you had a Cat model, and wanted to automatically translate

a provided age (in human years) into cat years before saving to the database? This is a perfect use

case for mutators.

1 <?php

3 class Cat extends Eloquent {

4 public function setAgeAttribute($age)

5 {

6 $this->attributes['age'] = $age * 7;

7 }

8 }

Now, when age is set on the model, it will first be filtered through this method, which multiplies

the age by seven (the ratio of cat to human years). In effect:

1 $cat = new Cat;

2 $cat->age = 6;

4 echo $cat->age; // 42

If you’re thinking that this would be easy to test, you’d be right!

1 public function testAutomaticallyCompensatesForCatYears()

2 {

3 $cat = new Cat;

4 $cat->age = 6;

6 $this->assertEquals(42, $cat->age); // true

7 }

Password Hashing Example

As another example, let’s say that we want to remove the need to manually hash a user’s password

within the controller. Well, once again, a mutator will handle this task quite nicely.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 84

1 <?php

3 class User extends Eloquent {

4 public function setPasswordAttribute($password)

5 {

6 $this->attributes['password'] = Hash::make($password);

7 }

8 }

Testing this method is only slightly more tricky. Because the mutator calls Hash::make, if we want

to test in isolation, then that class needs to be mocked. Luckily, because it’s a facade, doing so is

trivial.

1 public function testHashesPasswordWhenSet()

2 {

3 Hash::shouldReceive('make')->once()->andReturn('hashed');

5 $author = new Author;

6 $author->password = 'foo';

8 $this->assertEquals('hashed', $author->password);

9 }

This test uses a mock as a way of saying:

“I expect the make method on the Hash class to be triggered one time. When this occurs,

rather than calling the original method, I’ll just return the string, hashed.

This technique offers three advantages:

1. We continue testing in complete isolation from external objects.

2. If the mutator does not call Hash::make, the expectation will fail, and we’ll be notified

immediately upon running phpunit.

3. Testing Hash::make can be tricky, because its return value will be somewhat random. Though

you could, perhaps, ensure that the length of the mutated password is sixty characters

(matching a hash’s length), why bother when you can instead mock the dependency entirely?

Custom Methods

Of course, there will also be various custom methods within your model that should be tested.

Approach these in the same way that you would any other test. For example, let’s assume that an

Article model should offer a way to retrieve meta information in readable form. This time, let’s

write the test first.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 85

1 <?php

3 class ArticleTest extends TestCase {

4 public function testGetsReadableMetaData()

5 {

6 $article = new Article;

7 $article->title = 'My First Article';

8 $article->author = 'Perd Hapley';

10 $this->assertEquals(

11 '"My First Article" was written by Perd Hapley.',

12 $article->meta()

13 );

14 }

15 }

So, when a meta method is called for the given model, we expect the string, “My First Article” was

written by Perd Hapley. to be returned.

The production code to make this test pass simply needs to fetch a couple attribute values and format

them as a sentence. Rather than dealing with a bunch of concatenation, let’s stick with PHP’s native

sprintf function.

1 <?php

3 class Article extends Eloquent {

4 public function meta()

5 {

6 return sprintf(

7 '"%s" was written by %s.',

8 $this->title,

9 $this->author

10 );

11 }

12 }

Testing is easy!

Validations

Another relatively simple way to ease into the process of testing models is to test validations. As an

example, to create a new author, a name field or property must be present. Otherwise, it’s invalid,

right? How might we verity that in a test?

Chapter 6: Testing Models 86

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAName()

4 {

5 $author = new Author;

7 $this->assertFalse($author->validate());

8 }

Notice how the name of the test describes our desired behavior for the model.

Running phpunit will, of course, fail, alerting you that an Author model does not exist.

1 PHP Fatal error: Class 'Author' not found

There’s the next step: create the model.

1 <?php // app/models/Author.php

3 class Author extends Eloquent {}

Tip: When using my generators tool²⁴, I prefer to create bash aliases, such as g:m to

generate a model, g:mig for a migration, etc. As such, to create a new Author model, I

would simply run g:m author from the Terminal.

Should you run the tests again, you’ll be notified that a validate method does not exist on the

model. Let’s add this to a BaseModel class that all models can inherit from. But, before continuing

on with this current test, we need to ensure that this new validate method works correctly. Because

we haven’t yet fully gone over mocks and stubs, don’t worry if some of the following code appears

foreign to you.

²⁴https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-4-Generators

Chapter 6: Testing Models 87

1 <?php // app/tests/BaseModelTest.php

3 class BaseModelTest extends TestCase {

5 protected $model;

7 public function setUp()

8 {

9 parent::setUp();

11 $this->model = $model = new BaseModel;

12 $model::$rules = ['title' => 'required'];

13 }

15 public function testReturnsTrueIfValidationPasses()

16 {

17 Validator::shouldReceive('make')->once()->andReturn(

18 Mockery::mock(['passes' => true])

19 );

21 $this->model->title = 'Foo Title';

22 $result = $this->model->validate();

24 $this->assertEquals(true, $result);

25 }

27 public function testSetsErrorsOnObjectIfValidationFails()

28 {

29 Validator::shouldReceive('make')->once()->andReturn(

30 Mockery::mock(['passes' => false, 'messages' => 'messages'])

31 );

33 $result = $this->model->validate();

35 $this->assertEquals(false, $result);

36 $this->assertEquals('messages', $this->model->errors);

37 }

38 }

Again, notice how the names of the tests describe how the code should behave. This is preferred

over testValidate. These two tests account for both paths through the method: successful and

failed validation. Because we’re testing in isolation, it’s paramount that we refrain from triggering

Laravel’s native Validator class. Or, in other words, we don’t need proof that that class works

Chapter 6: Testing Models 88

correctly. Taylor has already tested it. As such, we can mock it. You’ll learn all of this in the Mockery-

specific chapter shortly.

Here’s the associated code to make those two tests pass:

1 <?php // app/models/BaseModel.php

3 class BaseModel extends Eloquent

4 {

5 public $errors;

7 public function validate()

8 {

9 $v = Validator::make($this->attributes, static::$rules);

11 if ($v->passes()) return true;

13 $this->errors = $v->messages();

15 return false;

16 }

17 }

This validate method consists of fairly boilerplate code to validate the current set of attributes

against a static rules property that should exist on each model.

Now that a validate method is available to all models, we can return to the former test. Here it is

again for reference.

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAName()

4 {

5 $author = new Author;

7 $this->assertFalse($author->validate());

8 }

And its related production code, which now inherits from the newly added BaseModel.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 89

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 class Author extends BaseModel {

4 public static $rules = [];

5 }

At this point, PHPUnit should, as expected, fail.

1 1) AuthorTest::testIsInvalidWithoutAName

2 Failed asserting that true is false.

When making use of the generic assertTrue and assertFalse methods, always provide a custom

message to avoid meaningless failures, like Failed asserting that true is false.

1 $this->assertFalse($author->validate(), 'Expected validation to fail.');

Although we expected the validation to fail, because no rules have been set, it did not. To fix that,

update the $rules property on the Author model, as needed.

1 <?php // app/models/Author.php

3 class Author extends BaseModel {

4 protected static $rules = [

5 'name' => 'required'

6 ];

7 }

This should return us to green! Let’s try a couple more. An email address should be required, too.

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAValidEmail()

4 {

5 // Set fixture

6 $author = new Author;

7 $author->name = 'Joe';

8 $author->email = 'foo';

10 $this->assertFalse($author->validate(), 'Expected validation to fail.')\

11 ;

12 }

Once again, we’re back to a failing test. Not only should an email address be set, but it should adhere

to the format of a real email address.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 90

1 <?php // app/models/Author.php

3 class Author extends BaseModel {

4 protected static $rules = [

5 'name' => 'required',

6 'email' => 'required|email'

7 ];

8 }

Tip: Refer to the Laravel documentation²⁵ for a full list of available validation rules.

If you think about it, a valid email is not enough; we should also ensure that it’s a unique one. We

don’t want multiple authors with the sample email address. Write a test (which touches the database

once) to verify that this never happens.

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 public function testIsInvalidWithoutUniqueEmail()

4 {

5 // Set fixture

6 $author = new Author;

7 $author->name = 'Joe';

8 $author->email = 'joe@example.com';

9 $author->save();

11 // Now, try to insert a new author

12 // with the same email. We don't want that.

13 $author = new Author;

14 $author->name = 'Frank';

15 $author->email = 'joe@example.com';

17 // Ensure that validation fails, because there already is

18 // an author with that email registered.

19 $this->assertFalse($author->validate(), 'Expected validation to fail.')\

20 ;

21 }

²⁵http://four.laravel.com/docs/validation#available-validation-rules

Chapter 6: Testing Models 91

Fixtures: Think of a fixture as a dummy record that can be inserted into a table for the

purposes of testing.

Laravel offers a unique:TABLENAME validation rule that will serve our needs nicely here.

1 <?php // app/models/Author.php

3 class Author extends BaseModel {

4 protected static $rules = [

5 'name' => 'required',

6 'email' => 'required|email|unique:authors'

7 ];

8 }

That should do it. Back to green.

1 OK (3 tests, 3 assertions)

Warning: One glaring problem with this approach is that, as you add additional fields,

it can lead to false positives in your tests. It’s better to begin with a complete model, and

then update individual fields, as needed. More on that later in this chapter.

Helpers

Because, as you might imagine, testing validations is so common, it makes sense to abstract this

away to a custom assertion, such as assertValid and assertNotValid. If working with PHP 5.4 or

higher, traits are a helpful choice for storing these sorts of mixins.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 92

1 <?php // app/tests/helpers/ModelHelpers.php

3 trait ModelHelpers {

4 public function assertValid($model)

5 {

6 $this->assertTrue(

7 $model->validate(),

8 'Model did not pass validation.'

9 );

10 }

12 public function assertNotValid($model)

13 {

14 $this->assertFalse(

15 $model->validate(),

16 'Did not expect model to pass validation.'

17 );

18 }

19 }

We’ve introduced a new app/tests/helpers directory, so don’t forget to update composer, and then

composer dump-autoload.

1 // composer.json

3 "autoload": {

4 "classmap": [

5 // ...

6 "app/tests/TestCase.php",

7 "app/tests/helpers"

8 ]

9 }

The wonderful thing about traits is that they can easily be imported into existing classes, via the use

keyword. To pull these two mixins into AuthorTest, it’s as easy as doing:

Chapter 6: Testing Models 93

1 class AuthorTest extends TestCase {

2 use ModelHelpers;

4 // ...

5 }

Now, this more readable assertion syntax may be used for testing validations.

1 // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAName()

4 {

5 $author = new Author;

7 $this->assertNotValid($author);

8 }

10 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAValidEmail()

11 {

12 $author = new Author;

13 $author->name = 'Joe';

15 $this->assertNotValid($author);

16 }

Factories

Up until this point, we’ve resorted to the somewhat cumbersome task of manually building test

objects.

1 $author = new Author;

2 $author->name = 'Joe';

3 $author->email = 'joe@example.com';

Surely, there must an easier way. Ideally, we could leverage a factory, which will handle the process

of dynamically building the attributes for a model. Further, it should follow the clean Laravel style,

such as:

1 $author = Factory::author();

Or, to create an object with all of the necessary fields, and insert it into the DB:

Chapter 6: Testing Models 94

1 Factory::create('author');

Finally, we also need to have the option of overriding one or more fields’ default value.

1 Factory::create('author', ['email' => 'foo@foo.com']);

Though building a tool like this from scratch is beyond the scope of this book, I’ve already done

the work for you! It’s available on Packagist²⁶. Update your composer.json file as detailed on the

Packagist page, pull in the dependencies, and, now, the tests may be updated to:

1 <?php // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 use Way\Tests\Factory;

5 class AuthorTest extends TestCase {

6 use ModelHelpers;

8 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAName()

9 {

10 $author = Factory::author(['name' => null]);

12 $this->assertNotValid($author);

13 }

15 public function testIsInvalidWithoutAValidEmail()

16 {

17 $author = Factory::author(['email' => 'foo']);

19 $this->assertNotValid($author);

20 }

22 public function testIsInvalidWithoutUniqueEmail()

23 {

24 $author = Factory::create('author', ['email' => 'joe@example.com'])\

25 ;

27 // Now try to insert a new author with the same email.

28 $author = Factory::author(['email' => 'joe@example.com']);

30 // Let's make sure that it fails.

²⁶https://packagist.org/packages/way/laravel-test-helpers

Chapter 6: Testing Models 95

31 $this->assertNotValid($author);

32 }

34 }

Much cleaner!

Laravel Test Helpers

The package that you just installed eases the process of writing tests for Laravel applications, by

offering:

• A Factory utility (quickly create and populate models)

• Various Model test helpers (assertValid, assertBelongsTo, etc.)

• Assert and Should PHPUnit wrappers. We reviewed these in Chapter 4.

Factories

Ever found yourself repeatedly creating test models over and over?

1 $user = new User;

2 $user->email = 'foo@example.com'

3 $user->name = 'Joe';

This can very quickly flood your test classes. Instead, use a factory!

1 <?php

3 use Way\Tests\Factory;

5 class UserTest extends TestCase {

7 public function testBasicExample()

8 {

9 $user = Factory::attributesFor('User');

10 }

11 }

Now, the $user variable will be equal to random data that fits the data types for each field. Something

like:

Chapter 6: Testing Models 96

1 .array(6) {

2 'id' =>

3 NULL

4 'name' =>

5 string(3) "Kim"

6 'email' =>

7 string(15) "kim@example.com"

8 'age' =>

9 int(26)

10 'created_at' =>

11 string(19) "2013-05-01 02:21:49"

12 'updated_at' =>

13 string(19) "2013-05-01 02:21:49"

14 }

Overrides

There will be times, though, when you need to specify values for some fields. This can be particularly

helpful for validation, where, say, a model should be invalid, unless an email is provided.

1 $user = Factory::attributesFor('User', ['email' => null]);

Any fields specified in the second argument will override the random defaults.

Models

The static attributesFor method is great for fetching an array of attributes. If you want the full

Laravel collection, then you have two options:

1 $user = Factory::user();

This technique uses callStatic to allow for the readable syntax shown above. This works, if the

model is in the global namespace, but if it’s not, you’ll want to use the make method.

1 $user = Factory::make('Models\User');

If you happen to be working with a real test database, you can also use the create method, which

will instantiate the model, fill it with dummy data, and save it to the database.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 97

1 $user = Factory::create('User');

Test Helpers

This package also includes a growing list of test helpers.

assertValid and assertNotValid

1 <?php

3 use Way\Tests\Factory;

5 class UserTest extends TestCase {

6 use Way\Tests\ModelHelpers;

8 public function testIsInvalidWithoutName()

9 {

10 $user = Factory::user(['name' => null]);

12 $this->assertNotValid($user);

13 }

15 }

All model test helpers are stored as traits. This makes them super easy to import into our test class.

Simply add use Way\Tests\ModelHelpers; to the top of the class, and you should be good to go.

In the example above, we are asserting that a User model should be invalid, unless its name field is

not empty.

Currently, the assertion will look for a validate method on the model.

Asserting Relationships

There are also various assertions for Laravel relationships. Let’s assert that a User model has many

Posts.

Chapter 6: Testing Models 98

1 public function testHasManyPosts()

2 {

3 $this->assertHasMany('posts', 'User');

4 }

Running phpunit will return:

bash 3) UserTest::testHasManyPosts Expected the 'User' class to have method, 'posts'.

Failed asserting that false is true.

Go ahead and add a posts method to User.

1 public function posts()

2 {

3 $this->hasMany('Post');

4 }

And now we’re back to green.

Currently, you can assert:

• assertBelongsTo

• assertHasOne

• assertHasMany

Summary

Arguments can be made for not testing controllers, where not a huge amount of logic is being

performed, but, when it comes to models, it’s vital that you not cut any corners.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With

Mockery

It’s an unfortunate truth that, while the basic principle behind testing is quite simple, fully

introducing this process into your day-to-day coding workflow is more difficult than you might

hope. The various jargon alone can prove overwhelming! Luckily, a variety of tools have your back,

and help to make the process as simple as it can be. Mockery²⁷, the premier mock object framework

for PHP, is one such tool!

In this article, we’ll dig into what test doubles are, why they’re useful, and how to integrate Mockery

into your testing workflow.

Mocking Decoded

A mock object is nothing more than a bit of test jargon that refers to simulating the behavior of

real objects. In simpler terms, often, when testing, you won’t want to execute a particular method.

Instead, you simply need to ensure that it was, in fact, called.

Perhaps an example is in order. Imagine that your code triggers a method that will log a bit of data

to a file. When testing this logic, you certainly don’t want to physically touch the file system. This

has the potential to drastically decrease the speed of your tests. In these situations, it’s best to mock

your file system class, and, rather than manually read the file to prove that it was updated, merely

ensure that the applicable method on the class was, in fact, called. This is mocking! There’s nothing

more to it than that; simulate the behavior of objects.

Remember: jargon is just jargon. Never allow an initially confusing piece of terminology

to deter you from learning a new skill.

Particularly as your development process matures - including embracing the single responsibility

principle and leveraging dependency injection - a familiarity with mocking will quickly become

essential.

Mocks vs. Stubs:

You’ll frequently hear the terms, mock and stub, thrown about interchangably. In fact, the two serve

different purposes. The former refers to the process of defining expectations and ensuring desired

behavior. In other words, a mock can potentially lead to a failed test. A stub, on the other hand, is

²⁷https://github.com/padraic/mockery

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 100

simply a dummy set of data that can be passed around to meet certain criteria.

As you’ll find, there are multiple ways to fake data, each of which has its advantages, dependent

upon the scenario. As a group, they are referred to as test doubles.

The defacto testing library for PHP, PHPUnit, ships with its own API for mocking objects; however,

unfortunately, it can prove cumbersome to work with. As you’re surely aware, the more difficult

testing is, the more likely it is that the developer simply (and sadly) won’t.

Luckily, a variety of third-party solutions are available through Packagist (Composer’s package

repository), which allow for increased readability, and, more importantly, writeability. Among these

solutions - and most notable of the set - is Mockery, a framework-agnostic mock object framework.

Designed as a drop-in alternative for those who are overwhelmed by PHPUnit’s mocking verbosity,

Mockery is a simple, but powerful utility. As you’ll surely find, in fact, it’s the industry standard for

modern PHP development.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 101

Installation

Like most modern PHP tools, Mockery may be installed with Composer.

Like most PHP tools these days, the recommended method to install Mockery is through Composer

(though it’s available through Pear too).

Wait, what’s this Composer²⁸ thing? It’s the PHP community’s preferred tool for

dependency management. It provides an easy way to declare a project’s dependencies,

and pull them in with a single command. As a modern PHP developer, it’s vital that

you have a basic understanding of what Composer is, and how to use it.

If working along, for learning purposes, add a new composer.json file to an empty project and

append:

²⁸http://getcomposer.org

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 102

1 {

2 "require-dev": {

3 "mockery/mockery": "dev-master"

4 }

5 }

This bit of JSON specifies that, for development, your application requires the Mockery library. From

the command-line, a composer install --dev will pull in the package.

1 $ composer install --dev

2 Loading composer repositories with package information

3 Installing dependencies (including require-dev)

4 - Installing mockery/mockery (dev-master 5a71299)

5 Cloning 5a712994e1e3ee604b0d355d1af342172c6f475f

7 Writing lock file

8 Generating autoload files

As an added bonus, Composer ships with its own autoloader for free! Either specify

a classmap of directories and composer dump-autoload, or follow the PSR-0 standard

and adjust your directory structure to match. Refer to Nettuts+²⁹ to learn more. If you’re

still manually requiring countless files in each PHP file, well, you just might be doing

it wrong.

The Dilemma

Before we can implement a solution, it’s best to first review the problem. Imagine that you need to

implement a system for handling the process of generating content and writing it to a file. Perhaps

the generator compiles various data, either from local file stubs, or a web service, and then that data

is written to the file system.

If following the single responsibility principle - which dictates that each class should be responsible

for exactly one thing - then it stands to reason that we should split this logic into two classes: one for

generating the necessary content, and another for physically writing the data to a file. A Generator

and File class, respectively, should do the trick.

Tip: Why not use file_put_contents directly from the Generator class? Well, ask

yourself: “How could I test this?” There are techniques, such as monkey patching, which

can allow you to overload these sorts of things, but, as a best practice, it’s better to

instead wrap such functionality up, so that it may easily be mocked with tools, like

Mockery!

²⁹http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/psr-huh/

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 103

Here’s a basic structure (with a healthy dose of pseudo code) for our Generator class.

1 <?php // src/Generator.php

3 class Generator {

4 protected $file;

6 public function __construct(File $file)

7 {

8 $this->file = $file;

9 }

11 protected function getContent()

12 {

13 // simplified for demo

14 return 'foo bar';

15 }

17 public function fire()

18 {

19 $content = $this->getContent();

21 $this->file->put('foo.txt', $content);

22 }

23 }

Dependency Injection

This code leverages what we refer to as dependency injection. Once again, this is simply developer

jargon for injecting a class’s dependencies through its constructor method, rather than hard-coding

them.

Why is this beneficial? Because, otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to mock the File class! Sure, we

could mock the File class, but if its instantiation is hard-coded into the class that we’re testing,

there’s no easy way to replace that instance with the mocked version.

1 public function __construct()

2 {

3 // anti-pattern

4 $this->file = new File;

5 }

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 104

The best way to build testable application is to approach each new method call with the question,

“How might I test this?” While there are tricks for getting around this hard-coding, doing so is widely

considered to be a bad practice. Instead, always inject a class’s dependencies through the constructor,

or via setter injection.

Setter injection is more or less identical to constructor injection. The principle is exactly the same;

the only difference is that, rather injecting the class’s dependencies through its constructor method,

they’re instead done so through a setter method, like so:

1 public function setFile(File $file)

2 {

3 $this->file = $file;

4 }

A common criticism of dependency injection is that it introduces additional complexity into an

application, all for the sake of making it more testable. Though the complexity argument is debatable

in this author’s opinion, if you should prefer, you can allow for dependency injection, while still

specifying fallback defaults. Here’s an example:

1 class Generator {

2 public function __construct(File $file = null)

3 {

4 $this->file = $file ?: new File;

5 }

6 }

Now, if an instance of File is passed through to the constructor, that object will be used in the class.

On the other hand, if nothing is passed, the Generator will fall back to manually instantiating the

applicable class. This allows for such variations as:

1 # Class instantiates File

2 new Generator;

4 # Inject File

5 new Generator(new File);

7 # Inject a mock of File for testing

8 new Generator($mockedFile);

Continuing on, for the purposes of this tutorial, the File class will be nothing more than a simple

wrapper around PHP’s file_put_contents function.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 105

1 <?php // src/File.php

3 class File

4 {

5 /**

6 * Write data to a given file

7 *

8 * @param string $path

9 * @param string $content

10 * @return mixed

11 */

12 public function put($path, $content)

13 {

14 return file_put_contents($path, $content);

15 }

16 }

Rather simple, eh? Let’s write a test to see, first-hand, what the problem is.

1 <?php // tests/GeneratorTest.php

3 class GeneratorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testItWorks()

5 {

6 $file = new File;

7 $generator = new Generator($file);

9 $generator->fire();

10 }

11 }

Please note that these examples assume that the necessary classes are being autoloaded

with Composer. Your composer.json file optionally accepts an autoload object, where

you may specify which directories or classes to autoload. No more messy require

statements!

If working along, running phpunit will return:

1 OK (1 test, 0 assertions)

It’s green; that means we can move on to the next task, right? Well, not exactly. While it’s true

that the code does, indeed, work, each time this test is run, a foo.txt file will be created on the

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 106

file system. What about when you’ve written dozens more tests? As you can imagine, very quickly,

your test’s speed of execution will stutter.

image

“Though the tests pass, they’re incorrectly touching the filesystem.”

Still not convinced? If reduced testing speed won’t sway you, then consider common sense. Think

about it: we’re testing the Generator class; why do we have any interest in executing code from the

File class? It should have its own tests! Why the heck would we double up?

The Solution

Hopefully, the previous section provided the perfect illustration for why mocking is essential. As was

noted earlier, though we could make use of PHPUnit native API to serve our mocking requirements,

it’s not overly enjoyable to work with. To illustrate this truth, here’s an example for asserting that a

mocked object should receive a method, getName and return John Doe.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 107

1 public function testNativeMocks()

2 {

3 $mock = $this->getMock('SomeClass');

4 $mock->expects($this->once())

5 ->method('getName')

6 ->will($this->returnValue('John Doe'));

7 }

While it gets the job done - asserting that a getName method is called once, and returns John Doe -

PHPUnit’s implementation is confusing and verbose. With Mockery, we can drastically improve its

readability.

1 public function testMockery()

2 {

3 $mock = Mockery::mock('SomeClass');

4 $mock->shouldReceive('getName')

5 ->once()

6 ->andReturn('John Doe');

7 }

Notice how the latter example reads (and speaks) better.

Continuing with the example from the previous “Dilemma section, this time, within the GeneratorTest

class, let’s instead mock - or simulate the behavior of - the File class with Mockery. Here’s the

updated code:

1 <?php

3 class GeneratorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function tearDown()

5 {

6 Mockery::close();

7 }

9 public function testItWorks()

10 {

11 $mockedFile = Mockery::mock('File');

13 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('put')

14 ->with('foo.txt', 'foo bar')

15 ->once();

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 108

17 $generator = new Generator($mockedFile);

18 $generator->fire();

19 }

20 }

Confused by the Mockery::close() reference within the tearDown method? This static

call cleans up the Mockery container used by the current test, and run any verification

tasks needed for your expectations.

A class may be mocked using the readable Mockery::mock() method. Next, you’ll typically need

to specify which methods on this mock object you expect to be called, along with any applicable

arguments. This may be accomplished, via the shouldReceive(METHOD) and with(ARG) methods.

In this case, when we call $generate->fire(), we’re asserting that it should call the put method on

the File instance, and send it the path, foo.txt, and the data, foo bar.

1 // libraries/Generator.php

3 public function fire()

4 {

5 $content = $this->getContent();

7 $this->file->put('foo.txt', $content);

8 }

Because we’re using dependency injection, it’s now a cinch to instead inject the mocked File object.

1 $generator = new Generator($mockedFile);

If we run the tests again, they’ll still return green, however, the File class - and, consequently, the

file system - will never be touched! Again, there’s no need to touch File. It should have its own

tests! Mocking for the win!

Simple Mock Objects

Mock objects needn’t always reference a class. If you only require a simple object, perhaps for a user,

you might pass an array to the mock method - where, for each item, the key and value correspond

to the method name and return value, respectively.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 109

1 public function testSimpleMocks()

2 {

3 $user = Mockery::mock(['getFullName' => 'Jeffrey Way']);

4 $user->getFullName(); // Jeffrey Way

5 }

Return Values From Mocked Methods

There will surely be times, when a mocked class method needs to return a value. Continuing on with

our Generator/File example, what if we need to ensure that, if the file already exists, it shouldn’t be

overwritten? How might we accomplish that?

The key is to use the andReturn() method on your mocked object to simulate different states. Here’s

an updated example:

1 public function testDoesNotOverwriteFile()

2 {

3 $mockedFile = Mockery::mock('File');

5 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('exists')

6 ->once()

7 ->andReturn(true);

9 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('put')

10 ->never();

12 $generator = new Generator($mockedFile);

13 $generator->fire();

14 }

This updated code now asserts that an exists method should be triggered on the mocked File class,

and it should, for the purposes of this test’s path, return true, signaling that the file already exists

and shouldn’t be overwritten. We next ensure that, in situations such as this, the put method on the

File class is never triggered. With Mockery, this is easy, thanks to the never() expectation.

1 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('put')

2 ->never();

Should we run the tests again, an error will be returned:

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 110

1 Method exists() from File should be called

2 exactly 1 times but called 0 times.

Aha; so the test expected that $this->file->exists() should be called, but that never happened.

As a result, it failed. Let’s fix it!

1 <?php

3 class Generator {

4 protected $file;

6 public function __construct(File $file)

7 {

8 $this->file = $file;

9 }

11 protected function getContent()

12 {

13 // simplified for demo

14 return 'foo bar';

15 }

17 public function fire()

18 {

19 $content = $this->getContent();

20 $file = 'foo.txt';

22 if (! $this->file->exists($file))

23 {

24 $this->file->put($file, $content);

25 }

26 }

27 }

That’s all there is to it! Not only have we followed a TDD (test-driven development) cycle, but the

tests are back to green!

It’s important to remember that this style of testing is only effective if you do, in fact,

test the dependencies of your class as well! Otherwise, though the tests may show green,

for production, the code will break. Our demo this far has only ensured that Generator

works as expected. Don’t forget to test File as well!

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 111

Expectations

Let’s dig a bit more deeply into Mockery’s expectation declarations. You’re already familiar with

shouldReceive. Be careful with this, though; its name is a bit misleading. When left on its

own, it does not require that the method should be triggered; the default is zero or more times

(zeroOrMoreTimes()). To assert that you require the method to be called once, or potentially more

times, a handful of options are available:

1 $mock->shouldReceive('method')->once();

2 $mock->shouldReceive('method')->times(1);

3 $mock->shouldReceive('method')->atLeast()->times(1);

There will be times when additional constraints are necessary. As demonstrated earlier, this can be

particularly helpful when you need to ensure that a particular method is triggered with the necessary

arguments. It’s important to keep in mind that the expectation will only apply if a method is called

with these exact arguments.

Here’s a few examples.

1 $mock->shouldReceive('get')->withAnyArgs()->once(); // the default

2 $mock->shouldReceive('get')->with('foo.txt')->once();

3 $mock->shouldReceive('put')->with('foo.txt', 'foo bar')->once();

This can be extended even further to allow for the argument values to be dynamic in nature, as long

as they meet a certain criteria. Perhaps we only wish to ensure that a string is passed to a method:

1 $mock->shouldReceive('get')->with(Mockery::type('string'))->once();

Or, maybe the argument needs to match a regular expression. Let’s assert that any file name that

ends with .txt should be matched.

1 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('put')

2 ->with('/\.txt$/', Mockery::any())

3 ->once();

And as a final (but not limited to) example, let’s allow for an array of acceptable values, using the

anyOf matcher.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 112

1 $mockedFile->shouldReceive('get')

2 ->with(Mockery::anyOf('log.txt', 'cache.txt'))

3 ->once();

With this code, the expectation will only apply if the first argument to the get method is log.txt

or cache.txt. Otherwise, a Mockery exception will be thrown when the tests are run.

1 Mockery\Exception\NoMatchingExpectationException: No matching handler found\

2 ...

Tip: Don’t forget, you can always alias Mockery as m at the top of your class to make

things a bit more succinct: use Mockery as m;. This allows for the more succinct,

m::mock().

Lastly, we have a variety of options for specifying what the mocked method should do or return.

Perhaps we only need it to return a boolean. Easy:

1 $mock->shouldReceive('method')

2 ->once()

3 ->andReturn(false);

Partial Mocks

You may find that there are situations when you only need to mock a single method, rather than the

entire object. Let’s imagine, for the purposes of this example, that a method on your class references

a custom global function (gasp) to fetch a value from a configuration file.

1 <?php

3 class MyClass {

4 public function getOption($option)

5 {

6 return config($option);

7 }

9 public function fire()

10 {

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 113

11 $timeout = $this->getOption('timeout');

12 // do something with $timeout

13 }

14 }

While there are a few different techniques for mocking global functions. nonetheless, it’s best to

avoid this method call all together. This is precisely when partial mocks come into play.

1 public function testPartialMockExample()

2 {

3 $mock = Mockery::mock('MyClass[getOption]');

4 $mock->shouldReceive('getOption')

5 ->once()

6 ->andReturn(10000);

8 $mock->fire();

9 }

Notice how we’ve placed the method to mock within brackets. Should you have multiple methods,

simply separate them by a comma, like so:

1 $mock = Mockery::mock('MyClass[method1, method2]');

With this technique, the remainder of the methods on the object will trigger and behave as they

normally would. Keep in mind that you must always declare the behavior of your mocked methods,

as we’ve done above. In this case, when getOption is called, rather than executing the code within

it, we simply return 10000.

An alternative option is to make use of passive partial mocks, which you can think of as setting a

default state for the mock object: all methods defer to the main parent class, unless an expectation

is specified.

The previous code snippet may be rewritten as:

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 114

1 public function testPassiveMockExample()

2 {

3 $mock = Mockery::mock('MyClass')->makePartial();

4 $mock->shouldReceive('getOption')

5 ->once()

6 ->andReturn(10000);

8 $mock->fire();

9 }

In this example, all methods on MyClass will behave as they normally would, excluding getOption,

which will be mocked and return 10000‘.

Hamcrest

The Hamcrest library provides an additional set of matchers for defining expectations.

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 115

Once you’ve familiarized yourself with the Mockery API, it’s recommended that you also leverage

the Hamcrest library, which provides an additional set of matchers for defining readable expecta-

tions. Like Mockery, it may be installed through Composer.

1 "require-dev": {

2 "mockery/mockery": "dev-master",

3 "davedevelopment/hamcrest-php": "dev-master"

4 }

Once installed, you may use a more human-readable notation to define your tests. Below are a

handful of examples, including slight variations that achieve the same end result.

1 <?php

3 class HamCrestTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

4 public function testHamcrestMatchers()

5 {

6 $name = 'Jeffrey';

7 $age = 28;

8 $hobbies = ['coding', 'guitar', 'chess'];

10 assertThat($name, is('Jeffrey'));

11 assertThat($name, is(not('Joe')));

13 assertThat($age, is(greaterThan(20)));

14 assertThat($age, greaterThan(20));

16 assertThat($age, is(integerValue()));

18 assertThat(new Foo, is(anInstanceOf('Foo')));

20 assertThat($hobbies, is(arrayValue()));

21 assertThat($hobbies, arrayValue());

23 assertThat($hobbies, hasKey('coding'));

24 }

25 }

Notice how Hamcrest allows you to write your assertions in as readable or terse a way as you desire.

The use of the is() function is nothing more than syntactic sugar to aid in readability.

You’ll find that Mockery blends quite nicely with Hamcrest. For instance, with Mockery alone, to

specify that a mocked method should be called with a single argument of type, string, you might

write:

Chapter 7: Easier Testing With Mockery 116

1 $mock->shouldReceive('method')

2 ->with(Mockery::type('string'))

3 ->once();

If using Hamcrest, Mockery::type may be replaced with stringValue(), like so:

1 $mock->shouldReceive('method')

2 ->with(stringValue())

3 ->once();

Hamcrest follows the resourceValue naming convention for matching the type of a value.

• nullValue

• integerValue

• arrayValue

• rinse and repeat

Alternatively, to match any argument, Mockery::any() may become anything().

1 $file->shouldReceive('put')

2 ->with('foo.txt', anything())

3 ->once();

Summary

The biggest hurdle to using Mockery is, ironically, not the API, itself, but understanding why and

when to use mocks in your testing.

The key is to learn and respect the single responsibility principle in your coding workflow. Coined

by Bob Martin, the SRP dicates that a class “should have one, and only one, reason to change.” In

other words, a class shouldn’t need to be updated in response to multiple, unrelated changes to

your application, such as modifying business logic, or how output is formatted, or how data may be

persisted. In its simplest form, just like a method, a class should do one thing.

The File class manages file system interactions. A MysqlDb repository persists data. An Email class

prepares and sends emails. Notice how, in none of these example was the word, and used.

Once this is understood, testing becomes considerably easier. Dependency injection should be used

for all operations that do not fall under the class’s umbrella. When testing, focus on one class at a

time, and mock all of its dependencies. You’re not interested in testing them anyways; they have

their own tests!

Though nothing prevents you from making use of PHPUnit’s native mocking implementation, why

bother when Mockery’s improved readability is only a composer update away?

Chapter 8: Test Databases

There are those who will tell you that under no circumstances should your unit tests touch the

database. In fact, I’m a strong proponent for this very thing. If a test can be executed adequately

without hitting the database, then absolutely do it. This has the potential to drastically increase the

speed of your tests, and is truer to what unit testing is.

Having said that, there may be times when this simply isn’t possible for certain tests. Maybe you’re

working with a bit of legacy code, or maybe the simple fact of the matter is that you’ll sleep better

at night with a handful of tricky unit tests that run against the database. The world won’t end if you

break a few rules every once in a while. And, of course, the techniques outlined in this chapter will

be useful for other styles of testing, such as integration tests.

Before moving forward, a word of caution: if you frequently come to the conclusion that

a database call is necessary for your unit tests, then perhaps you should first consider

redesigning. Is the class too tightly coupled to the database layer?

Test Databases

For the instances when it’s necessary to work with a fixture (an object with faked values), you

certainly don’t want to be using the production database. Luckily, Laravel can exist and function in

multiple environments.

For example, when triggering PHPUnit tests, the framework will automatically set the environment

to testing. To specify custom configuration options on a per-environment basis, simply create a new

folder within app/config/ that has the same name as the environment that its contents should

correspond to. Notice that Laravel already includes an app/config/testing folder. As such, any

configuration file that is placed here will take precendence over its production sibling. In translation,

the contents of app/config/testing/database.php will override app/config/database.php.

To specify a unique MySQL database for testing, you might write:

117

Chapter 8: Test Databases 118

1 <?php // app/config/testing/database.php

3 return array(

4 'connections' => array(

6 'mysql' => array(

7 'driver' => 'mysql',

8 'host' => 'localhost',

9 'database' => 'TEST_DB_NAME',

10 'username' => 'USERNAME',

11 'password' => 'PASSWORD',

12 'charset' => 'utf8',

13 'collation' => 'utf8_unicode_ci',

14 'prefix' => '',

15 )

17 )

18 );

Don’t forget that, to save time, you can copy and paste the applicable bits from app/config/database.php.

In this case, it’s only necessary to update the mysql connection to point to the new test database.

That’s all it should take!

Specifying the Environment

As noted earlier, within the context of a PHPUnit test, the environment will automatically be set to

testing. You can confirm this by viewing app/tests/TestCase.php.

1 // app/tests/TestCase.php

3 public function createApplication()

4 {

5 $unitTesting = true;

7 $testEnvironment = 'testing';

9 return require __DIR__.'/../../bootstrap/start.php';

10 }

However, the same will not be true when running Artisan commands.

Chapter 8: Test Databases 119

For instance, imagine that you’ve added a new migration to create an authors table with a few fields.

If using my popular Laravel 4 Generators tool³⁰, this can be accomplished using a single command.

1 php artisan generate:migration create_posts_table --fields="name:string, em\

2 ail:string:unique"

This command will generate the migration, as well as the necessary schema. However, upon

migrating the database with php artisan migrate, you’ll find that this still executes the migration

on the production database. Of course it does! How was Laravel supposed to know that you expected

it to be applied to the testing DB?

The --env option may be used to declare your desired environment.

1 php artisan migrate --env="testing"

Chances are, though, that you’ll want to refresh the migrations for each test. How might we

accomplish that?

Calling Artisan From Tests

If touching the database, it’s important that each test executes with a clean slate, so to speak.

Otherwise, there’s the potential to fall into traps where a particular expectation fails, due to the

previous test modifying the database table in a way that you didn’t expect.

The solution is to, for each test, roll back the migrations and re-run them. Artisan offers the

migrate:refresh command, which will handle this exact task. To trigger these commands from

your code (try not to ever do this in your production code), use the Artisan::call() method, like

so:

1 <?php // app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 class AuthorTest extends TestCase {

4 public function setUp()

5 {

6 parent::setUp();

8 Artisan::call('migrate:refresh');

9 }

10 }

Simply pass the name of an Artisan command as the first argument to Artisan::call(), and it’ll

achieve the same end-result as:

³⁰https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-4-Generators

Chapter 8: Test Databases 120

1 php artisan COMMAND --env="testing"

You also may need to seed the database as well.

1 $this->seed();

Try It Out

Step 1: Create a book-testing database.

Step 2: Install the migrations table (only necessary once):

1 php artisan migrate:install --env="testing"

Step 3: Add a migration to create a new authors table.

1 php artisan generate:migration create_authors_table --fields="name:string, \

2 email:string:unique"`.

This migration will, of course, be used for production, as well as testing.

Step 4: Add a dummy test to app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php to ensure that the setUp() method

runs at least once.

1 <?php # app/tests/models/AuthorTest.php

3 class AuthorTest extends TestCase {

4 public function setUp()

5 {

6 parent::setUp();

8 Artisan::call('migrate:refresh');

9 }

11 public function testDummyToEnsureSetUpRuns()

12 {

13 $this->assertTrue(true);

14 }

15 }

Step 5: Run the tests: phpunit

If executed successfully, you’ll see that the CreateMigrationsTable migration was executed, and

the associated table was added to the test database. Success! You may now rest assured that each

test will begin with a freshly reset and migrated database.

Chapter 8: Test Databases 121

Databases in Memory

One popular technique for improving the performance of tests which touch the database is to opt

for a Sqlite database in memory. Though benchmarks vary, this technique may still be one that you

should consider.

To instruct Laravel to use a database in memory, update app/config/testing/database.php to set

a new default driver for testing.

1 <?php // app/config/testing/database.php

3 return array(

4 'default' => 'sqlite',

6 'connections' => array(

7 'sqlite' => array(

8 'driver' => 'sqlite',

9 'database' => ':memory:',

10 'prefix' => '',

11 )

12 )

13 );

Notice how, rather than setting the database key to a .sqlite file, instead, a DB in memory was

specified. With this modification alone, when testing, Laravel will automatically set the environment

to testing and reference the in-memory DB.

When choosing this method, it’s vital that, before each test, you re-migrate and seed the database.

Here’s an example:

1 public function setUp()

2 {

3 parent::setUp();

5 Artisan::call('migrate');

6 $this->seed();

7 }

These two lines will construct and seed all necessary tables before firing each test.

Chapter 8: Test Databases 122

Summary

When it comes to unit testing specifically, use the techniques outlined in this chapter as a last resort.

First, make every effort to test in isolation. If doing so seems impossibly, then it’s likely that your

code should be decoupled.

In a perfect world, test databases should only be used for outside-in tests.

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang

Laravel’s use of facades is easily one of the most misunderstood features of the framework. In fact,

to newcomers, it may appear as though Laravel is a big mess of untestable static method calls.

1 Mail::send();

2 DB::getQueryLog();

3 Queue::push();

Those of us with a moderate amount of experience with object-oriented programming and testing

are conditioned to instantly squirm at the site of statics, like these. Sure, you can test a single static

method; but, as soon as that method calls another method, you’ll quickly find yourself in a world of

hurt when it’s time to test.

Fortunately, Laravel - rather brilliantly, I might add - allows for this clean syntax, while still, behind

the scenes, instantiating the applicable class, allowing for perfect testability. This makes for the best

of both worlds, and is what we refer to as the Facade Pattern.

Facade: A facade is an object that provides a simplified interface to a larger body of

code.

Other than readability, one of the significant advantages to this approach is that the underlying class

can easily be swapped out with a mock for testing purposes. In translation, this means that you are

free to use these facades within your code (without injecting them), while still allowing for complete

testability.

Mockery

Every Laravel facade extends a parent Facade class that offers, among other things, a shouldReceive

method. When called, Laravel will automatically swap out the registered instance with a mock, using

Mockery. See for yourself:

123

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang 124

1 // vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Support/Facades/Facade.php

3 /**

4 * Initiate a mock expectation on the facade.

5 *

6 * @param dynamic

7 * @return \Mockery\Expectation

8 */

9 public static function shouldReceive()

10 {

11 $name = static::getFacadeAccessor();

13 if (static::isMock())

14 {

15 $mock = static::$resolvedInstance[$name];

16 }

17 else

18 {

19 static::$resolvedInstance[$name] = $mock = \Mockery::mock(static::g\

20 etMockableClass($name));

22 static::$app->instance($name, $mock);

23 }

25 return call_user_func_array(array($mock, 'shouldReceive'), func_get_arg\

26 s());

27 }

Don’t worry if this code is difficult to interpret. You needn’t understand every facet. Most

importantly, though, recognize that the resolved instance is being swapped out with a mocked

version.

1 static::$resolvedInstance[$name] = $mock = \Mockery::mock(static::getMockab\

2 leClass($name));

So how might we use this to our advantage?

Testing

For the purposes of simplicity, imagine that, when a particular URL is requested, a file will be created

on the server. It’s a silly example, but will illustrate this swapping functionality nicely. When unit

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang 125

testing, we certainly don’t want to physically create the file for each test. It’s a better idea to mock

the File class, like so:

1 public function testCreatesFile()

2 {

3 File::shouldReceive('put')->once();

5 $this->call('GET', 'foo');

6 }

This code declares that, when localhost:8000/foo is requested, we expect that the put method on the

mocked version of the Filesystem class will be called.

Assuming that no foo route currently exists, PHPUnit will, of course, fail:

1 1) ExampleTest::testCreatesFile

2 Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Exception\NotFoundHttpException:

Let’s create the route.

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('foo', function()

4 {

6 });

Somehow, the test will now pass. But how is that possible? We declared that File::put() should be

called once. Yet, even though the route closure is empty, the test still passes. Huh? As it turns out,

you’ll fall into this trap often.

Remember: because we’re leveraging Mockery, a tearDown method must always be

declared in your test file. Among other things, this call will verify your expectations. To

avoid repetition, you can place this tearDown method within the parent TestCase class

that Laravel provides.

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang 126

1 <?php // app/tests/FooTest.php

3 class FooTest extends TestCase {

5 public function tearDown()

6 {

7 Mockery::close();

8 }

10 public function testCreatesFile()

11 {

12 File::shouldReceive('put')->once();

14 $this->call('GET', 'foo');

15 }

17 }

Now, we’re back to a failed test, as expected.

1 1) ExampleTest::testCreatesFile

2 Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method put() from Illuminate\Files\

3 ystem\Filesystem should be called

4 exactly 1 times but called 0 times.

Here, we see Mockery hard at work. Let’s make the test pass.

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('foo', function()

4 {

5 File::put(__DIR__.'/file.txt', 'Lorem ipsum');

6 });

We’re back to green! Admittedly, it’s a silly example, but, nonetheless, it’s really a very cool (and

unique) feature of Laravel! Even though the route’s callback calls File::put(), we can override

the resolved instance of the Filesystem class and replace it with a mocked version - all by simply

writing File::shouldReceive().

The end result is that the production code continues to be as readable as possible, while still allowing

for the tests to run crazy fast.

As an alternative to using shouldReceive, if you prefer, you can instead use the facade’s swap

method, which will replace the underlying instance with the object that you pass in.

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang 127

Mocking Events

Laravel 4 provides an easy way to fire and listen for custom events, via the Event class (also a facade).

Using Tuts+ Premium³¹ as an example, it might make sense for the app to fire an event when a

user cancels their subscription. This way, other parts of the application can respond by sending a

cancellation email to the user, updating a report, clearing out a database record…any number of

things.

Here’s what the destroy method on a users controller might look like.

1 public function destroy($id)

2 {

3 // Get the user who is canceling

4 $user = $this->user->findOrFail($id);

6 // Soft delete the user

7 // To soft delete, set the $softDelete property

8 // on the User model

9 $user->delete();

11 // Make announcement, and send the $user object

12 Event::fire('cancellation', ['user' => $user]);

14 // Redirect to home page

15 return Redirect::home();

16 }

When writing a functional test for this controller, we can simulate the fired event in the same way

that we did with the File facade.

1 public function testDestroyUser()

2 {

3 Event::shouldReceive('fire')

4 ->once()

5 ->with(['cancellation', Mockery::any()]);

7 // Perform any other necessary expectations

9 $this->call('DELETE', '/users/1');

10 }

Even though we referenced the Event class explicitly, we’re still able to mock it with ease.

³¹http://tutsplus.com

Chapter 9: Just Swap That Thang 128

Summary

In this chapter, we reviewed Laravel’s unique use of facades, which, though confusing at first, allow

for the readable static syntax that endeared all of us to Laravel in the first place. Even though it feels

as if you’re interacting with statics, these are merely illusions (or facades) that instantiate underlying

classes, making for complete testability. It’s the best of both worlds!

The techniques outlined in this chapter are most useful for small to medium-sized project. However,

if you find yourself relying on mocking facades too much, it might be an indication that your code

could be better organized.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers

Testing controllers (a form of functional testing) isn’t the easiest thing in the world. Well, let me

rephrase that: testing them is a cinch; what’s difficult, at least at first, is determining what to test.

Should a controller test verify text on the page? Should it touch the database? Should it ensure that

variables exist in the view? If this is your first hay-ride, these things can be confusing! Let me help.

Controller tests should verify responses, ensure that the correct database access methods

are triggered, and assert that the appropriate instance variables are sent to the view.

Before we continue, it’s worth noting that some groups of developers feel that testing controllers is

unnecessary. Instead, they prefer integration tests (I’m more inclined to call them functional tests)

that will indirectly verify that these controllers work properly. As always, make up your own mind.

What allows you to sleep better at night?

What Does a Controller Do?

Before we discuss testing, however, perhaps it’s a smart idea to first review which responsibilities a

controller should have. As I see things, there are two core areas of focus:

1. Direct traffic, by serving as the application’s HTTP interface.

2. Send its own messages to the domain object. As they say, controllers should tell, rather than

ask (Fat Model -> Skinny Controller).

But, as you might expect, in practice, we typically do quite a bit more. Are you performing validation

in the model? Is that the controller’s responsibility? Are you verifying actions on the model, in order

to proceed in different ways based on the result? If you’re not careful, before long, your controllers

can become massive code smells.

In these situations, it’s best to take a step back, and ask yourself, “What is the responsibility of this

class?” If you find yourself using the word, and, too frequently, then a code smell just might be near!

Tip: The less work your controller does, the easier it is to test. This is true for all classes,

and is one of the benefits of embracing the single responsibility principle.

129

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 130

3 Steps to Testing Controllers

The process of testing a controller (or any class, really) can be divided into three pieces.

• Isolate: Mock all dependencies (perhaps excluding the View).

• Call: Trigger the desired controller method.

• Ensure: Perform assertions, verifying that the stage has been set properly.

Or, you might recognize this as the more generic pattern, AAA:

• Arrange

• Act

• Assert

The Hello World of Controller Testing

The best way to learn these things is through examples. Here’s the “hello world” of controller testing

in Laravel.

1 <?php

3 class PostsControllerTest extends TestCase {

5 public function testIndex()

6 {

7 $this->client->request('GET', 'posts');

8 }

9 }

Laravel leverages a handful of Symfony’s components to ease the process of testing routes and

views, including HttpKernel, DomCrawler, and BrowserKit. This is why it’s paramount that your

PHPUnit tests inherit from, not PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase, but TestCase. Don’t worry, Laravel

still extends the former, but it helps setup the Laravel app for testing, as well as provides a variety

of helper assertion methods that you are encouraged to use. More on that shortly.

In the code snippet above, we make a GET request to /posts, or localhost:8000/posts. Assuming

that this line is added to a fresh installation of Laravel, Symfony will throw a NotFoundHttpException.

If working along, try it out by running phpunit from the command line.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 131

1 $ phpunit

2 1) PostsControllerTest::testIndex

3 Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Exception\NotFoundHttpException:

In human-speak, this essentially translates to, “Hey, I tried to call that route, but you don’t have

anything registered, fool!”

As you can imagine, this type of request is common enough to the point that it makes sense to

provide a helper method, such as $this->call(). In fact, Laravel does that very thing! This means

that the previous example can be refactored, like so:

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

4 }

Well, that’s only partially true. Even though $this->call() and $this->client->request() will

both call a particular route, the returned values will differ.

1 $crawler = $this->client->request('GET', '/'); // Symfony\Component\DomCraw\

2 ler\Crawler

4 $response = $this->call('GET', '/'); // Illuminate\Http\Response

As a basic rule of thumb, if you intend to crawl the DOM - this bit of text should appear when the page

is loaded - then use $this->client->request(), as it will return a Crawler instance. Otherwise, the

call method, which will return a response object, will do just fine.

Overloading is Your Friend

Though we’ll stick with the base functionality in this chapter, in my personal projects, I take

things a step further by allowing for such methods as $this->get(), $this->post(), etc. Thanks

to PHP overloading, this only requires the addition of a single method, which you could add to

app/tests/TestCase.php.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 132

1 public function __call($method, $args)

2 {

3 if (in_array($method, ['get', 'post', 'put', 'patch', 'delete']))

4 {

5 return $this->call($method, $args[0]);

6 }

8 throw new BadMethodCallException;

9 }

Now, you’re free to write $this->get('posts') and achieve the exact same result as the previous

two examples. As noted above, however, let’s stick with the framework’s base functionality for

simplicity’s sake.

To make the test pass, we only need to prepare the proper route.

1 <?php

3 Route::get('posts', function()

4 {

5 return 'all posts';

6 });

Running phpunit again will return us to green.

Calling Controller Actions

If you’d prefer to instead call a controller directly, you can instead use the action method, like so:

1 $response = $this->action('GET', 'PostsController@index');

This will trigger the index method on PostsController. Any applicable parameters may be passed

as the third argument.

1 $response = $this->action('GET', 'PostsController@show', ['id' => 1]);

Laravel’s Helper Assertions

A test that you’ll find yourself writing repeatedly is one that ensures that a controller passes a

particular variable to a view. For example, the index method of PostsController should pass a

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 133

$posts variable to its associated view, right? That way, the view can filter through all posts, and

display them on the page. This is an important test to write!

If it’s that common a task, then, once again, wouldn’t it make sense for Laravel to provide a helper

assertion to accomplish this very thing? Of course it would. And, of course, Laravel does!

Illuminate\Foundation\Testing\TestCase includes a number of methods that will drastically

reduce the amount of code needed to perform basic assertions. This list includes:

• assertViewHas

• assertResponseOk

• assertRedirectedTo

• assertRedirectedToRoute

• assertRedirectedToAction

• assertSessionHas

• assertSessionHasErrors

The following examples calls GET /posts and verifies that its views receives the variable, $posts.

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

5 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

6 }

Tip: When it comes to formatting, I prefer to provide a line break between a test’s

assertion and the code that prepares the stage.

assertViewHas is simply a bit of sugar that inspects the response object - which is returned from

$this->call() - and verifies that the data associated with the view contains a posts variable.

When inspecting the response object, you have two core choices.

• $response->getOriginalContent(): Fetch the original content, or the returned View. Option-

ally, you may access the original property directly, rather than calling the getOriginalContent

method.

• $response->getContent(): Fetch the evaluated output. If a View instance is returned from

the route, then getContent() will be equal to the HTML output. This can be helpful for DOM

verifications, such as “the view must contain this string.”

Let’s assume that the posts route consists of:

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 134

1 <?php

3 Route::get('posts', function()

4 {

5 return View::make('posts.index');

6 });

Should we run phpunit, it will squawk with a helpful next step message:

1 1) PostsControllerTest::testIndex

2 Failed asserting that an array has the key 'posts'.

To make it green, we simply fetch the posts and pass it to the view.

1 Route::get('posts', function()

2 {

3 $posts = Post::all();

5 return View::make('posts.index', ['posts', $posts]);

6 });

One thing to keep in mind is that, as the code currently stands, it only ensures that the variable,

$posts, is passed to the view. It doesn’t inspect its value. The assertViewHas optionally accepts a

second argument to verify the value of the variable, as well as its existence.

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

5 $this->assertViewHas('posts', 'foo');

6 }

With this modified code, unles the view has a variable, $posts, that is equal to foo, the test will fail.

In this situation, though, it’s likely that we’d rather not specify a value, but instead declare that the

value be an instance of Laravel’s Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Collection class. How might

we accomplish that? PHPUnit provides a helpful assertInstanceOf assertion to fill this very need!

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 135

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'posts');

5 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

7 // getData() returns all vars attached to the response.

8 $posts = $response->original->getData()['posts'];

10 $this->assertInstanceOf('Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Collection', $pos\

11 ts);

12 }

With this modification, we’ve declared that the controller must pass $posts - an instance of

Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Collection - to the view. Excellent.

Mocking the Database

There’s one glaring problem with our tests so far. Did you catch it?

For each test, a SQL query is being executed on the database. Though this is useful for

certain kinds of testing (acceptance, integration), for basic controller testing, it will only

serve to decrease performance.

I’ve drilled this into your skull multiple times at this point. We’re not interested in testing Eloquent’s

ability to fetch records from a database. It has its own tests. Taylor knows it works! Let’s not waste

time and processing power repeating those same tests.

Instead, it’s best to mock the database, and merely verify that the appropriate methods are called

with the correct arguments. Or, in other words, we want to ensure that Post::all() never fires and

hits the database. We know that works, so it doesn’t require testing.

This section will depend heavily on the Mockery library. Please review that chapter from my book³²,

if you’re not yet familiar with it.

Required Refactoring

Unfortunately, so far, we’ve structured the code in a way that makes it virtually impossible to test.

³²http://leanpub.com/laravel-testing-decoded

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 136

1 Route::get('posts', function()

2 {

3 // Ouch. We can't test this!!

4 $posts = Post::all();

6 return View::make('posts.index')

7 ->with('posts', $posts);

8 });

This is precisely why it’s considered bad practice to nest Eloquent calls into your controllers. Don’t

confuse Laravel’s facades, which are testable and can be swapped out with mocks (Queue::shouldReceive()),

with your Eloquent models. The solution is to inject the database layer into the controller through

the constructor. This requires some refactoring.

Warning: Storing logic within route callbacks is useful for small projects and APIs,

but they make testing incredibly difficult. For applications of any considerable size, use

controllers.

Let’s register a new resource by replacing the posts route with:

1 Route::resource('posts', 'PostsController');

…and create the necessary resourceful controller with Artisan.

1 $ php artisan controller:make PostsController

2 Controller created successfully!

Now, rather than referencing the Post model directly, we’ll inject it into the controller’s constructor.

Here’s a condensed example that omits all restful methods, except the one that we’re currently

interested in testing.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 137

1 <?php

3 class PostsController extends BaseController {

5 protected $post;

7 public function __construct(Post $post)

8 {

9 $this->post = $post;

10 }

12 public function index()

13 {

14 $posts = $this->post->all();

16 return View::make('posts.index')

17 ->with('posts', $posts);

18 }

20 }

Tip:: It’s a better idea to type-hint an interface, rather than reference the Eloquent model,

itself. But, one thing at a time! Let’s work up to that.

Don’t worry about manually injecting the Post instance. Like magic, Laravel will do

this automatically for you! This is referred to as automatic resolution³³. More on this

shortly.

This is a significantly better way to structure the code. Because the model is now injected, we have

the ability to swap it out with a mocked version for testing. Here’s an example of doing just that:

³³http://four.laravel.com/docs/ioc#automatic-resolution

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 138

1 <?php

3 class PostsControllerTest extends TestCase {

5 public function __construct()

6 {

7 // We have no interest in testing Eloquent

8 $this->mock = Mockery::mock('Eloquent', 'Post');

9 }

11 public function tearDown()

12 {

13 Mockery::close();

14 }

16 public function testIndex()

17 {

18 $this->mock

19 ->shouldReceive('all')

20 ->once()

21 ->andReturn('foo');

23 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

25 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

27 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

28 }

30 }

The key benfit to this restructuring is that, now, the database will never needlessly be hit. Instead,

using Mockery, we merely verify that the all method is triggered on the model.

1 $this->mock

2 ->shouldReceive('all')

3 ->once();

Unfortunately, if you choose to forego coding to an interface, and instead inject the Post model into

the controller, a bit of trickery has to be used in order to get around Eloquent’s use of statics, which

can clash with Mockery. This is why we hijack both the Post and Eloquent classes within the test’s

constructor, before the official versions have been loaded. This way, we have a clean slate to declare

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 139

any expectations. The downside, of course, is that we can’t default to any existing methods, through

the use of Mockery methods, like makePartial().

The IoC Container

Laravel’s IoC container drastically eases the process of injecting dependencies into your classes.

Each time a controller is requested, it is resolved out of the IoC container. As such, when we need

to declare that a mock version of Post should be used for testing, we only need to provide Laravel

with the instance of Post that should be used.

1 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

Think of this code as saying, “Hey Laravel, when you need an instance of Post, I want

you to use my mocked version.” Because the app extends the Container we have access

to all IoC methods directly off of it.

Upon instantiation of the controller, Laravel leverages the power of PHP reflection to read the

typehint and inject the dependency for you. That’s right; you don’t have to write a single binding

to allow for this; it’s automated!

Redirections

Another common expectation that you’ll find yourself writing is one that ensures that the user is

redirected to the proper location, perhaps upon adding a new post to the database. How might we

accomplish this?

1 public function testStore()

2 {

3 $this->mock

4 ->shouldReceive('create')

5 ->once();

7 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

9 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

11 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.index');

12 }

Assuming that we’re following a restful flavor, to add a new post, we’d POST to the collection, or

posts (don’t confuse the POST request method with the resource name, which just happens to have

the same name).

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 140

1 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

Then, we only need to leverage another of Laravel’s helper assertions, assertRedirectedToRoute.

Tip: When a resource is registered with Laravel (Route::resource()), the framework

will automatically register the necessary named routes. Run php artisan routes if you

ever forget what these names are.

You might prefer to also ensure that the $_POST superglobal is passed to the create method. Even

though we aren’t physically submitting a form, we can still allow for this, via the Input::replace()

method, which allows us to “stub” this array. Here’s the modified test, which uses Mockery’s with()

method to verify the arguments passed to the method referenced by shouldReceive.

1 public function testStore()

2 {

3 Input::replace($input = ['title' => 'My Title']);

5 $this->mock

6 ->shouldReceive('create')

7 ->once()

8 ->with($input);

10 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

12 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

14 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.index');

15 }

Paths

One thing that we haven’t considered in this test is validation. There should be two separate paths

through the store method, dependent upon whether the validation passes:

1. Redirect back to the “Create Post” form, and display the form validation errors.

2. Redirect to the collection, or the named route, posts.index.

As a best practice, each test should represent but one path through your code.

This first path will be for failed validation.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 141

1 public function testStoreFails()

2 {

3 // Set stage for a failed validation

4 Input::replace(['title' => '']);

6 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

8 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

10 // Failed validation should reload the create form

11 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.create');

13 // The errors should be sent to the view

14 $this->assertSessionHasErrors(['title']);

15 }

The code snippet above explicitly declares which errors should exist. Alternatively, you may omit

the argument to assertSessionHasErrors, in which case it will merely verify that a message bag

has been flashed (in translation, your Redirection includes withErrors($errors)).

Now for the test that handles successful validation.

1 public function testStoreSuccess()

2 {

3 // Set stage for successful validation

4 Input::replace(['title' => 'Foo Title']);

6 $this->mock

7 ->shouldReceive('create')

8 ->once();

10 $this->app->instance('Post', $this->mock);

12 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

14 // Should redirect to collection, with a success flash message

15 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.index', ['flash']);

16 }

The production code for these two tests might look like:

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 142

1 public function store()

2 {

3 $input = Input::all();

5 // We'll run validation in the controller for convenience

6 // You should export this to the model, or a service

7 $v = Validator::make($input, ['title' => 'required']);

9 if ($v->fails())

10 {

11 return Redirect::route('posts.create')

12 ->withInput()

13 ->withErrors($v->messages());

14 }

16 $this->post->create($input);

18 return Redirect::route('posts.index')

19 ->with('flash', 'Your post has been created!');

20 }

Notice how the Validator is nested directly in the controller? Generally, I’d recommend that

you abstract this away to a service. That way, you can test your validation in isolation from any

controllers or routes. Nonetheless, let’s leave things as they are for simplicity’s sake. One thing to

keep in mind is that we aren’t mocking the Validator, though you certainly could do so. Because this

class is a facade, it can easily be swapped out with a mocked version, via the Facade’s shouldReceive

method, without us needing to worry about injecting an instance through the constructor. Win!

1 Validator::shouldReceive('make')

2 ->once()

3 ->andReturn(Mockery::mock(['fails' => 'true']));

From time to time, you’ll find that a method that needs to be mocked should return an object, itself.

Luckily, with Mockery, this is a piece of cake: we only need to create an anonymous mock, and pass

an array, which signals the method name and response value, respectively. As such:

1 Mockery::mock(['fails' => 'true'])

will prepare an object, containing a fails() method that returns true.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 143

Repositories

To allow for optimal flexibility, rather than creating a direct link between your controller and an

ORM, like Eloquent, it’s better to code to an interface. The considerable advantage to this approach

is that, should you perhaps need to swap out Eloquent for, say, Mongo or Redis, doing so literally

requires the modification of a single line. Even better, the controller doesn’t ever need to be touched.

Repositories represent the data access layer of your application.

What might an interface for managing the database layer of a Post look like? This should get you

started.

1 <?php namespace Repositories;

3 interface PostRepositoryInterface {

5 public function all();

7 public function find($id);

9 public function create($input);

11 }

This can certainly be extended, but we’ve added the bare minimum methods for the demo: all,

find, and create. Notice that the repository interfaces are being stored within app/repositories.

Because this folder is not autoloaded by default, we need to update the composer.json file for the

application to reference it.

1 "autoload": {

2 "classmap": [

3 // ....

4 "app/repositories"

5 ]

6 }

When a new class is added to this directory, don’t forget to composer dump-autoload

-o. The -o, (optimize) flag is optional, but should always be used, as a best practice.

If you attempt to inject this interface into your controller, Laravel will snap at you. Go ahead; try

it out and see. Here’s the modified PostController, which has been updated to inject an interface,

rather than the Post Eloquent model.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 144

1 <?php

3 use Repositories\PostRepositoryInterface as Post;

5 class PostsController extends BaseController {

7 protected $post;

9 public function __construct(Post $post)

10 {

11 $this->post = $post;

12 }

14 public function index()

15 {

16 $posts = $this->post->all();

18 return View::make('posts.index', ['posts' => $posts]);

19 }

20 }

If you run the server and view the output, you’ll be met with the dreaded (but beautiful) Whoops

error page, declaring that “PostRepositoryInterface is not instantiable.”

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 145

Not Instantiable?

If you think about it, of course the framework is squawking! Laravel is smart, but it’s not a mind

reader. It needs to be told which implementation of the interface should be used within the controller.

For now, let’s add this binding to app/routes.php. Later, we’ll instead make use of service providers

to store this sort of logic.

1 App::bind(

2 'Repositories\PostRepositoryInterface',

3 'Repositories\EloquentPostRepository'

4 );

Verbalize this function call as, “Laravel, baby, when you need an instance of PostRepositoryInterface,

I want you to use EloquentPostRepository.”

app/repositories/EloquentPostRepository will simply be a wrapper around Eloquent that im-

plements PostRepositoryInterface. This way, we’re not restricting the API (and every other

implementation) to Eloquent’s interpretation; we can name the methods however we wish.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 146

1 <?php namespace Repositories;

3 use Repositories\PostRepositoryInterface;

4 use Post;

6 class EloquentPostRepository implements PostRepositoryInterface {

8 public function all()

9 {

10 return Post::all();

11 }

13 public function find($id)

14 {

15 return Post::find($id);

16 }

18 public function create($input)

19 {

20 return Post::create($input);

21 }

23 }

Some might argue that the Post model should be injected into this implementation for

testability purposes. If you agree, simply inject it through the constructor, per usual.

That’s all it should take! Refresh the browser, and things should be back to normal. Only, now, your

application is far better structured, and the controller is no longer linked to Eloquent.

Let’s imagine that, a few months from now, your boss informs you that you need to swap Eloquent

out with Redis. Well, because you’ve structured your application in this future-proof way, you only

need to create the new app/repositories/RedisPostRepository implementation:

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 147

1 <?php namespace Repositories;

3 use Repositories\PostRepositoryInterface;

5 class RedisPostRepository implements PostRepositoryInterface {

7 public function all()

8 {

9 // return all with Redis

10 }

12 public function find($id)

13 {

14 // return find one with Redis

15 }

17 public function create($input)

18 {

19 // return create with Redis

20 }

22 }

And update the binding:

1 App::bind(

2 'Repositories\PostRepositoryInterface',

3 'Repositories\RedisPostRepository'

4 );

Instantly, you’re now leveraging Redis in your controller. Notice how app/controllers/PostsController.php

was never touched? That’s the beauty of it!

Structure

So far in this lesson, our organization has been a bit lacking. IoC bindings in the routes.php file?

All repositories grouped together in one directory? Sure, that may work in the beginning, but, very

quickly, it’ll become apparent that this doesn’t scale.

In the final section of this chapter, we’ll PSR-ify our code, and leverage service providers to register

any applicable bindings.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 148

PSR-0 defines the mandatory requirements that must be adhered to for autoloader

interoperability.

A PSR-0 loader may be registered with Composer, via the psr-0 object.

1 "autoload": {

2 "psr-0": {

3 "Way": "app/lib/"

4 }

5 }

The syntax can be confusing at first. It certainly was for me. An easy way to decipher "Way":

"app/lib/" is to think to yourself, “The base folder for the Way namespace is located in app/lib.” Of

course, replace my last name with the name of your project. The directory structure to match this

would be:

• app/

– lib/

* Way/

Next, rather than grouping all repositories into a repositories directory, a more elegant approach

might be to categorize them into multiple directories, like so:

• app/

– lib/

* Way/

· Storage/

· Post/

· PostRepositoryInterface.php

· EloquentPostRepository.php

It’s vital that we adhere to this naming and folder convention, if we want the autoloading to work as

expected. The only remaining thing to do is update the namespaces for PostRepositoryInterface

and EloquentPostRepository.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 149

1 <?php namespace Way\Storage\Post;

3 interface PostRepositoryInterface {

5 public function all();

7 public function find($id);

9 public function create($input);

11 }

And the implementation:

1 <?php namespace Way\Storage\Post;

3 use Post;

5 class EloquentPostRepository implements PostRepositoryInterface {

7 public function all()

8 {

9 return Post::all();

10 }

12 public function find($id)

13 {

14 return Post::find($id);

15 }

17 public function create($input)

18 {

19 return Post::create($input);

20 }

22 }

There we go; that’s much cleaner. But what about those pesky bindings? The routes file may be a

convenient place to experiment, but it makes little sense to store them there permanently. Instead,

we’ll use service providers.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 150

Service providers are nothing more than bootstrap classes that can be used to do

anything you wish: register a binding, hook into an event, import a routes file, etc.

The service provider’s register() method will be triggered automatically by Laravel.

1 <?php namespace Way\Storage;

3 use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;

5 class StorageServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider {

7 // Triggered automatically by Laravel

8 public function register()

9 {

10 $this->app->bind(

11 'Way\Storage\Post\PostRepositoryInterface',

12 'Way\Storage\Post\EloquentPostRepository'

13 );

14 }

16 }

To make this file known to Laravel, you only need to include it in app/config/app.php, within the

providers array.

1 'providers' => array(

2 'Illuminate\Foundation\Providers\ArtisanServiceProvider',

3 'Illuminate\Auth\AuthServiceProvider',

4 // ...

5 'Way\Storage\StorageServiceProvider'

6 )

Good; now we have a dedicated file for registering new bindings.

Updating the Tests

With our new structure in place, rather than mocking the Eloquent model, itself, we can instead

mock PostRepositoryInterface. Here’s an example of one such test:

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 151

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $mock = Mockery::mock('Way\Storage\Post\PostRepositoryInterface');

4 $mock->shouldReceive('all')->once();

6 $this->app->instance('Way\Storage\Post\PostRepositoryInterface', $mock)\

7 ;

9 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

11 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

12 }

However, we can improve this. It stands to reason that every method within PostsControllerTest

will require a mocked version of the repository. As such, it’s better to extract some of this prep work

into its own method, like so:

1 public function setUp()

2 {

3 parent::setUp();

5 $this->mock = $this->mock('Way\Storage\Post\PostRepositoryInterface');

6 }

8 public function mock($class)

9 {

10 $mock = Mockery::mock($class);

12 $this->app->instance($class, $mock);

14 return $mock;

15 }

17 public function testIndex()

18 {

19 $this->mock->shouldReceive('all')->once();

21 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

23 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

24 }

Not bad, ay?

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 152

Now, if you want to be super-fly, and are willing to add a touch of test logic to your production

code, you could even perform your mocking within the Eloquent model! This would allow for:

1 Post::shouldReceive('all')->once();

Behind the scenes, this would mock PostRepositoryInterface, and update the IoC binding. You

can’t get much more readable than that!

Allowing for this syntax only requires you to update the Post model, or, better, a BaseModel that all

of the Eloquent models extend. Here’s an example of the former:

1 <?php

3 class Post extends Eloquent {

5 public static function shouldReceive()

6 {

7 $class = get_called_class();

8 $repo = "Way\\Storage\\{$class}\\{$class}RepositoryInterface";

9 $mock = Mockery::mock($repo);

11 App::instance($repo, $mock);

13 return call_user_func_array(

14 [$mock, 'shouldReceive'],

15 func_get_args()

16 );

17 }

18 }

If you can manage the inner “Should I be embedding test logic into production code” battle, you’ll

find that this allows for significantly more readable tests.

1 <?php

3 class PostsControllerTest extends TestCase {

5 public function tearDown()

6 {

7 Mockery::close();

8 }

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 153

10 public function testIndex()

11 {

12 Post::shouldReceive('all')->once();

14 $this->call('GET', 'posts');

16 $this->assertViewHas('posts');

17 }

19 public function testStoreFails()

20 {

21 Input::replace($input = ['title' => '']);

23 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

25 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.create');

26 $this->assertSessionHasErrors();

27 }

29 public function testStoreSuccess()

30 {

31 Input::replace($input = ['title' => 'Foo Title']);

33 Post::shouldReceive('create')->once();

35 $this->call('POST', 'posts');

37 $this->assertRedirectedToRoute('posts.index', ['flash']);

38 }

40 }

It feels good, doesn’t it? Hopefully, this chapter hasn’t been too overwhelming. The key is to learn

how to organize your repositories in such a way to make them as easy as possible to mock and inject

into your controllers. As a result of that effort, your tests will be lightning fast!

Crawling the DOM

Because Laravel offers Symfony’s DomCrawler³⁴ component out of the box, if needed, you also have

the ability to inspect the DOM when calling routes.

³⁴http://symfony.com/doc/master/components/dom_crawler.html

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 154

When requesting a URI with $this->client->request(), a Crawler object will be returned, which

can then be used to filter the DOM and perform assertions.

Ensure View Contains Text

1 public function testLogin()

2 {

3 $crawler = $this->client->request('GET', '/login');

5 $h1 = $crawler->filter('h1');

7 $this->assertEquals('Please Login', $h1->text());

8 }

Above, we’re asserting that, when /login is requested, we expect to see an <h1> tag that contains the

text, Please Login.

Tip: The filter method may be used to filter the DOM, using the simple CSS selectors

that we’re all familiar with. Alternatively, XPath may be used, but stick with the

CSSSelector component, if you can. Its far more readable.

In the example above, the assertion will only pass if the first occurrence of an <h1> tag contains

Please Login. If you need to be more flexible, the assertion could be rewritten, like so:

1 $h1 = $crawler->filter('h1:contains("Hello World!")');

2 $this->assertCount(1, $h1);

Basic Traversing

The DomCrawler component offers a handful of traversal methods that can be used for further

filtering. Many of these are simply helpers that could also be accomplished by modifying the CSS

selector directly. Nonetheless, they can be a helpful convenience.

Fetch By Position

1 $crawler->filter('h2')->eq(2);

Fetch First or Last

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 155

1 $crawler->filter('ul.tasks li')->first();

2 $crawler->filter('ul.tasks li')->last();

Fetch Siblings

1 $crawler->filter('.question')->siblings();

Fetch Children

1 $crawler->filter('ul.tasks')->children();

Capture Text Content

Let’s say that you need to fetch the value of every list item within a particular unordered list.

1 <ul class="tasks">

2 <li>Go to store</li>

3 <li>Finish book</li>

4 <li>Eat dinner</li>

5 </ul>

How might you do that? Well, one way would be to use a CSS selector to hunt down the applicable

unordered list, map over the list of nodes, and extract the text content for each.

1 // Call route

2 $crawler = $this->client->request('GET', '/tasks');

4 // Filter down to the desired list

5 $items = $crawler->filter('ul.tasks li');

7 // Map over of the list, and return

8 // the text content for each.

9 $tasks = $items->each(function($node, $i)

10 {

11 return $node->text();

12 });

Now, if we var_dump($tasks), we’ll see a list of all tasks. Nifty.

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 156

1 .array(3) {

2 [0]=>

3 string(11) "Go to store"

4 [1]=>

5 string(11) "Finish book"

6 [2]=>

7 string(10) "Eat dinner"

8 }

But, we can do better. The extract method can be used to pull out everything from attribute values,

to the text content itself. As such, rather than mapping over the list items with each(), we can

instead clean things up a bit, like so:

1 $items = $crawler->filter('ul.tasks li');

2 $tasks = $items->extract('_text');

_text is a special attribute name that refers to the node’s value. This will achieve the exact same

result.

If you need to grab a different attribute value from a node, simply substitute _text with its name,

accordingly. Here’s a few examples:

1 $className = $node->extract('class');

2 $id = $node->extract('id');

3 $idAndClass = $node->extract(['id', 'class']);

Forms

Another helpful functionality that the DomCrawler component provides is the ability to fill out and

submit forms.

1 public function testRegister()

2 {

3 $crawler = $this->client->request('GET', '/register');

5 // Find the form associated with the submit button

6 // that has a value of 'Submit'

7 $form = $crawler->selectButton('Submit')->form();

9 // Fill out the form

10 $form['first'] = 'Jeffrey';

Chapter 10: Testing Controllers 157

11 $form['last'] = 'Way';

13 // Submit the form

14 $r = $this->client->submit($form);

15 }

This component can absolutely be helpful in certain situations; however, from my experiences, I

prefer to use a more streamlined and readable tool for querying the DOM: Codeception. We’ll discuss

this tool extensively in one of the following chapters. Until then, have fun with this!

Summary

There are those who would argue that testing controllers in this way is unnecessary. Let your

functional and acceptance tests, they’d say, verify the routes and view bindings. As always, these

things boil down to preference and testing style. Personally, I like to keep them.

One alternate approach, however, is to remove the mocks and instead treat these as true functional

tests, similar to what the Ruby on Rails community advocates. Setting up a test database (in memory,

if you can) for your controller tests, though slower, has the benefit of making the tests significantly

easier to write and prepare. It’s up to you! Make up your own mind.

Chapter 11: The IoC Container

An understanding of the IoC (Inversion of Control) pattern is paramount to building flexible and

testable applications in Laravel.

IoC: An IoC container provides an easy interface for managing the creation of complex

objects, without sacrificing on code readability or terseness. At its core, it allows you

to abstract complicated instantiation behind a single line. Dependency injection is an

implementation of the IoC pattern. Even better, Laravel’s implementation is one of the

most powerful in the PHP community. Outside of Laravel, Pimple³⁵ is quite popular, as

well.

Dependency Injection?

Laravel’s IoC container makes the process of leveraging dependency injection to build testable

applications as easy as possible. Dependency injection is a pattern for inserting a class’ dependencies

through its constructor (or a setter method, if you prefer), rather than hardcoding them - which, as

you might have guessed, makes testability a considerable problem.

Definition: Think of dependency injection as a way to allow your future self to inject

mocks in place of those dependencies, for testing purposes.

Constructor Injection

1 public function __construct(Validator $validator)

2 {

3 $this->validator = $validator;

4 }

Setter Injection

³⁵http://pimple.sensiolabs.org/

158

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 159

1 public function setValidator(Validator $validator)

2 {

3 $this->validator = $validator;

4 }

Consider the following class:

1 class MyCommand {

2 public function fire()

3 {

4 $generator = new ModelGenerator;

6 return $generator->make() ? 'foo' : 'bar';

7 }

8 }

This fire method is difficult to test - if not impossible (not without installing Runkit³⁶). It can be

improved by injecting an instance of ModelGenerator through the class’ constructor.

1 class MyCommand {

2 protected $generator;

4 public function __construct(ModelGenerator $generator)

5 {

6 $this->generator = $generator;

7 }

9 public function fire()

10 {

11 return $this->generator->make() ? 'foo' : 'bar';

12 }

13 }

Much better! Think of this as the command asking for the ModelGenerator. The test can now be

tested quite easily: mock ModelGenerator, inject it into the class, and perform an expectation that

the make method is called, along with your desired return value.

³⁶https://github.com/zenovich/runkit/

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 160

1 public function testFire()

2 {

3 $gen = Mockery::mock('ModelGenerator');

4 $gen->shouldReceive('make')->once()->andReturn(true);

6 $command = new MyCommand($gen);

8 $this->assertEquals('foo', $command->fire());

9 }

See? Not too hard. Dependency injection may initially be a scary term, but it’s actually quite

descriptive: inject dependencies into a class.

Resolving

Let’s review a second example. Consider the following controller.

1 <?php

3 class UsersController extends BaseController {

4 public function index()

5 {

6 $users = User::all();

8 return View::make('users.index', ['users' => $users]);

9 }

10 }

There’s nothing overly wrong with this code. In fact, you’ve surely written it, in some form or

another, many, many times! However, as soon as testability becomes a first-class citizen, this code

will no longer suffice. Why? Well, how would you test it without physically hitting the database?

There’s a couple hacks that you might use, but they involve alias mocks and multiple PHP processes.

Like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters, it’s just not a good idea. There are a couple ways to

manage this.

Solution 1: Defaults

Let’s assume that, for a particular project, no IoC container is available. In situations such as

this, allowing for testable code also has the adverse effect of forcing a laborious, less readable

instantiation.

Which would you prefer?

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 161

1 $thing = new Thing;

Or:

1 $dep1 = new Dependency;

2 $dep2 = new OtherDependency;

4 $thing = new Thing($dep1, $dep2);

One solution is to set a sensible default, while still allowing for constructor injection. Here’s an

example:

1 function __construct(Dependency $dep1 = null,

2 OtherDependency $dep2 = null)

3 {

4 $this->dep1 = $dep1 ?: new Dependency;

5 $this->dep2 = $dep2 ?: new OtherDependency;

6 }

With this technique, we have the flexibility to inject mock objects for both Dependency and

OtherDependency. On the flip-side, if we stick with new Thing;, those objects will still be

instantiated.

For small projects that don’t have the luxury of a dedicated container (even though they’re freely

available on Packagist), this may be a preferable choice.

Solution 2: Resolving

This is a Laravel book, so let’s solve it the Laravel way! A first step to improving this code might be

to first resolve the User model out of the IoC container, rather than referencing the class directly.

The following code resolves an instance of User, and then triggers its all method. Because one isn’t

currently registered, Laravel will simply fetch the User object and return the object.

1 public function index()

2 {

3 $users = App::make('User')->all();

5 return View::make('users.index', ['users' => $users]);

6 }

We’ll discuss binding/resolving more shortly. The most important piece to understand at the moment

is that we’re asking Laravel to resolve an instance of User out of the IoC container.

When testing the method, Eloquent can be avoided all together (why would we have any interest in

testing that?) by swapping out the currently registered instance of User with a mock, like so:

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 162

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 App::instance('User', Mockery::mock(['all' => 'foo']));

4 $this->call('GET', 'users');

5 }

With this modification, the next time that App::make('User') is called, Laravel will return this new

mock object. In this case, as the tested code will require access to an all method, we provide one

that simply returns foo.

Don’t forget that if an array is passed as the first argument to an anonymous mock, then Mockery

will register the keys of that array as methods, and their respective values as the methods’ returned

values. Here’s an example:

1 $mock = Mockery::mock(['foo' => 'bar']);

2 $mock->foo(); // bar

Should you need to perform expectations on the mock (you likely will), then the test may be

modified, like so:

1 public function testIndex()

2 {

3 $mock = Mockery::mock();

4 $mock->shouldReceive('all')->once()->andReturn('foo');

5 App::instance('User', $mock);

7 $this->call('GET', 'users');

8 }

Repeating this logic for each test can get tedious, though. We can DRY things up by extracting it to

its own method that will run before each test, like so:

1 <?php

3 class UsersControllerTest extends TestCase {

5 public function tearDown()

6 {

7 Mockery::close();

8 }

10 protected function mock($class)

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 163

11 {

12 // Create a mock object, and register the

13 // instance with the IoC container

14 $this->mock = Mockery::mock();

15 App::instance($class, $this->mock);

16 }

18 public function testIndex()

19 {

20 // Set an expectation that the all() method

21 // should be called at least once.

22 $this->mock->shouldReceive('all')->once();

24 $this->call('GET', 'users');

25 }

27 }

Now, each test only needs to declare its expectations on the model, and then call the route, per usual.

App Bindings

There will likely be times when you need more control over how classes are resolved out of the

container (or so you might think). You can register a binding with the app, and pass a closure as the

second argument, which will dictate how this binding will be resolved.

Here’s a contrived example that binds the key, foo, to a closure that will instantiate the IKnowKungFoo

class.

1 <?php // app/routes.php

3 class IKnowKungFoo {}

5 // Only for example. Don't do this.

6 App::bind('foo', function()

7 {

8 return new IKnowKungFoo;

9 });

To trigger that closure and return the new object, use App::make('foo').

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 164

1 Route::get('/', function()

2 {

3 var_dump(App::make('foo')); // object(IKnowKungFoo)#161

4 });

Laravel offers an alternate syntax for binding keys to classes. Rather than passing a closure, we

could instead reference the name of the class to instantiate, as a string. The following will achieve

the exact same result.

1 App::bind('foo', 'IKnowKungFoo');

Now, in a real-world situation, there’s no need for this. Because we’re not performing any real logic

within the closure, we could simply do:

1 Route::get('/', function()

2 {

3 var_dump(App::make('IKnowKungFoo'));

4 });

When resolving IKnowKungFoo, if Laravel doesn’t find an existing registered binding, it’ll next look

for a class name, called IKnowKungFoo. If it finds one, it will simply return a new instance. On

the other hand, if no class exists either, then Laravel has no idea what to do, in which case a

ReflectionException will be thrown:

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 165

A ReflectionException will be thrown if no binding or class is found.

Interfaces

You might be thinking to yourself, “When would this ever be useful?” Well, as it turns out, the

answer is quite frequently - particular when coding to an interface. Imagine a controller that asks

for an implementation of OrderRepositoryInterface. Repositories represent the data-access layer

of your application.

1 class OrdersController {

2 public function __construct(OrderRepositoryInterface $order)

3 {

4 $this->order = $order;

5 }

6 }

Because controllers, too, are resolved out of the IoC container, Laravel, when presented with this

code, will come to a road block, and throw a BindingResolutionException. Why? Because it’s

attempting to instantiate an interface, which obviously isn’t allowed. In situations such as this, the

framework needs a bit more information from us. Think of this exception as the framework’s way

of saying:

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 166

Okay, your controller is requesting an implementation of OrderRepositoryInterface

…but you haven’t told me which one to use. I’m adding this to Fail Blog, son.

Perhaps you want to use an Eloquent-specific implementation of the interface: EloquentOrderRepository.

To use it, create a new binding to make a connection between the interface and its implementation.

1 App::bind('OrderRepositoryInterface', 'EloquentOrderRepository');

To reiterate, think of this as your way of saying:

“Yo, Laravel - when you need an instance of OrderRepositoryInterface, I want you to

use EloquentOrderRepository. K bro?”

Remember, this line of code is identical to:

1 App::bind('OrderRepositoryInterface', function()

2 {

3 return new EloquentOrderRepository;

4 });

Now, when the OrdersController is instantiated, Laravel will correctly pull in the Eloquent

implementation of the repository. Why is this so useful? Because, when testing controllers (which

you’ll soon learn how to do), by allowing for this level of flexibility, injecting a mocked version of

the repository will be a cinch!

Tip: An existing instance may be bound to the container with App::instance().

Example 2: Automatic Resolution

Let’s review a second example to see just how far the rabbit hole goes. What if a UsersController

class requires two dependencies: a repository and user validation service?

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 167

1 App::bind('UsersController', function()

2 {

3 $repository = new Repositories\User;

4 $validator = new Services\Validators\User;

6 return new UsersController($repository, $validator);

7 });

For experimentation purposes, you may continue to throw this code in your routes file; however, for

real-world projects, you’ll likely want to create a service provider to register these types of bindings.

Nonetheless, if we run…

1 $usersController = App::make('UsersController');

…the closure will fire, and return a new instance of UsersController with those two dependencies.

Fine - we already know this. But, wait: Laravel is a smart little cookie! Through a technique referred

to as automatic resolution, Laravel can do the brunt of the work for you, thanks to the power of PHP

reflection.

Okay, too much jargon here; let’s simplify things. When resolving an object through the IoC

container, Laravel will attempt to read the constructor’s type-hints and automatically inject the

instance for you.

Definition: “PHP 5 comes with a complete reflection API that adds the ability to

reverse-engineer classes, interfaces, functions, methods and extensions. Additionally,

the reflection API offers ways to retrieve doc comments for functions, classes and

methods.” - php.net³⁷

Consider the following constructor:

1 class UsersController {

2 public function __construct(UserRepository $user, Validator $validator)

3 {

5 }

6 }

When resolved, Laravel will detect that instances of both UserRepository and Validator are

required. It will then instantiate and inject them automagically! Folks, this is a very cool thing. I

repeat: Laravel will automatically inject instances of those two classes for you; no manual binding

necessary.

³⁷http://www.php.net/manual/en/intro.reflection.php

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 168

Extra Credit

If you’d like to learn more about how Laravel allows for this, have a look at Illuminate/Container/Container

- specifically, the build method. See below (but don’t worry if it’s overwhelming).

1 <?php

2 // vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Container/Container.php

4 /**

5 * Instantiate a concrete instance of the given type.

6 *

7 * @param string $concrete

8 * @param array $parameters

9 * @return mixed

10 */

11 public function build($concrete, $parameters = array())

12 {

13 // If the concrete type is actually a Closure, we will just

14 // execute it and hand back the results of the functions,

15 // which allows functions to be used as resolvers for more

16 // fine-tuned resolution of these objects.

17 if ($concrete instanceof Closure)

18 {

19 return $concrete($this, $parameters);

20 }

22 $reflector = new \ReflectionClass($concrete);

24 // If the type is not instantiable, the developer is attempting

25 // to resolve an abstract type such as an Interface of Abstract

26 // Class and there is no binding registered for the abstractions

27 // so we need to bail out.

28 if ( ! $reflector->isInstantiable())

29 {

30 $message = "Target [$concrete] is not instantiable.";

32 throw new BindingResolutionException($message);

33 }

35 $constructor = $reflector->getConstructor();

37 // If there are no constructors, that means there are no

38 // dependencies then we can just resolve the instances of the

Chapter 11: The IoC Container 169

39 // objects right away, without resolving any other types or

40 // dependencies out of these containers.

41 if (is_null($constructor))

42 {

43 return new $concrete;

44 }

46 $parameters = $constructor->getParameters();

48 // Once we have all the constructor's parameters we can create

49 // each of the dependency instances and then use the reflection

50 // instances to make a new instance of this class, injecting the

51 // created dependencies in.

52 $dependencies = $this->getDependencies($parameters);

54 return $reflector->newInstanceArgs($dependencies);

55 }

The end result is that the previous binding example is unnecessary:

1 // Unnecessary

2 App::bind('UsersController', function()

3 {

4 $repository = new Repositories\User;

5 $validator = new Services\Validators\User;

7 return new UsersController($repository, $validator);

8 });

Laravel will automatically do this for you. It’s only necessary in situations when the instantiation

process is a bit too specific for Laravel to figure out automatically.

Summary

When researching inversion of control on the internet, you’ll likely come across dozens of incredibly

confusing articles and definitions. Make it easy on yourself: Laravel’s IoC container is simply a tool

that reverses the direction of responsibility, by assisting with class dependency management. When

embraced, your applications will become significantly more flexible and testable. Use it.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan

Commands Exercise

Though Laravel 3 offered a basic means for executing tasks directly from the command line,

the available functionality was somewhat limited. Luckily, version four instead leverages the

powerful Symfony Console component³⁸, which provides, not only structure, but great flexibility

and configuration for your commands. I think you’ll love it!

Commands 101

Before we dig into testing commands, let’s first review the basic process of creating them.

Scaffolding

Artisan ships with a nifty generator that can scaffold the necessary boilerplate code for new

commands. For instance, to create the skeleton for a command that expedites the process of adding

new users to a users table, from the command-line, run:

1 php artisan command:make UserCreatorCommand

This will generate app/commands/UserCreatorCommand.php with the following boilerplate:

1 <?php

3 use Illuminate\Console\Command;

4 use Symfony\Component\Console\InputInputOption;

5 use Symfony\Component\Console\InputInputArgument;

7 class UserCreatorCommand extends Command {

8 protected $name = 'command:name';

10 protected $description = 'Command description.';

12 public function __construct()

13 {

³⁸http://symfony.com/doc/2.0/components/console/introduction.html

170

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 171

14 parent::__construct();

15 }

17 public function fire() {}

19 protected function getArguments()

20 {

21 return array(

22 array(

23 'example',

24 InputArgument::REQUIRED,

25 'An example argument.'

26 )

27 );

28 }

30 protected function getOptions()

31 {

32 return array(

33 array(

34 'example',

35 null,

36 InputOption::VALUE_OPTIONAL,

37 'An example option.',

38 null

39 )

40 );

41 }

42 }

Take note of the name and description properties:

1 protected $name = 'command:name';

2 protected $description = 'Command description.';

The values provided here will be referenced when running php artisan from the command line.

Tip: The console component also supports pseudo-namespacing. To place multiple

commands under a migrate heading, as Laravel does by default, you’d name them as

migrate:install, migrate:make, etc. When running php artisan, they will be grouped.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 172

For a user creator command, we might go with:

1 protected $name = 'user:create';

2 protected $description = 'Create a new record in the users table.';

However, adjusting these values alone won’t make the command show up when running php

artisan; it first has to be registered with Artisan, which can be done from app/start/artisan.php.

1 <?php // app/start/artisan.php

3 Artisan::add(new UserCreatorCommand);

That should do it! If we now list the available Artisan commands with php artisan, the user:create

command should now display at the bottom. It’s so easy!

List available commands with php artisan.

Arguments

The console component makes the process of passing arguments and options to your command a

cinch. Specify any available arguments within the getArguments method, like so:

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 173

1 /**

2 * Get the console command arguments.

3 *

4 * @return array

5 */

6 protected function getArguments()

7 {

8 return array(

9 array(

10 'name',

11 InputArgument::REQUIRED,

12 'Name of the user'

13 )

14 );

15 }

Because this code specifies that the name argument is required, via InputArgument::REQUIRED (the

inverse being InputArgument::OPTIONAL), if we attempt to run the command without arguments,

a RuntimeException will be thrown.

A RuntimeException will be thrown if no argument is passed.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 174

Should you require additional arguments, simply return a comma-separated list of arrays from the

getArguments method.

To capture the value of the supplied name from your code, use $this->argument(KEY). The fire

method on the class will automatically be triggered when the command is called from the command-

line.

Here’s an example of capturing the name argument, and printing the response to the console.

1 // app/commands/UserCreatorCommand.php

3 /**

4 * Execute the console command.

5 *

6 * @return void

7 */

8 public function fire()

9 {

10 $name = $this->argument('name');

12 $this->info("The name that you want to add is {$name}.");

13 }

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 175

Tip: The Command class provides a handful of helper methods to print strings to the

console, including, but not limited to, info(), error(), and line(). Refer to the

Illuminate\Console\Console class for a full list.

The users of your command can view a list of the arguments and options, via the help dialog.

1 php artisan help user:create

Use the help dialog to view accepted arguments and options.

Options

Options are just that: optional. They can be helpful for specifying flags which alter how a particular

action is executed.

Perhaps your model generator (which we’ll build using TDD in the next section) should accept an

optional path to the models directory. You can accept this value, via the getOptions method, like so:

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 176

1 /**

2 * Get the console command options.

3 *

4 * @return array

5 */

6 protected function getOptions()

7 {

8 return array(

9 array(

10 'path',

11 'p',

12 InputOption::VALUE_OPTIONAL,

13 'Path to models directory',

14 'app/models'

15 )

16 );

17 }

Each option array can accept five parameters:

• Name of the option

• Optional alias: --path becomes -p

• Option variants, including VALUE_OPTIONAL, VALUE_REQUIRED, VALUE_NONE, VALUE_IS_ARRAY

• Description for help dialog

• Optional default value

Updating this single method now allows the user to override the default path to the models directory.

Here’s an example, assuming a generate:model command:

1 php artisan generate:model Dog --path="app/foo/models"

Alternatively, the user may instead reference the alias that we specified:

1 php artisan generate:model Dog -p="app/foo/models"

If the path option is specified, the value provided should be used as the path to the models directory;

otherwise, our default of app/models will be used.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 177

Single Responsibility Principle

It’s important to remember that, while you can throw every ounce of logic into your command class,

doing so is considered bad practice. Why? Well, once again, we come back to the single responsibility

principle.

A command class is responsible for running a command; it shouldn’t be concerned with manipulat-

ing the file system, or modifying a database record, or compiling templates. Yes, you can make the

class handle that work, but try not to. Instead, make use of dependency injection, so that the class

can merely call the necessary methods on its dependencies.

You may inject these dependencies from app/start/artisan.php. Below is an example of registering

a ModelGeneratorCommand command, while injecting an instance of Laravel’s Filesystem class.

1 // app/start/artisan.php

3 Artisan::add(

4 new ModelGeneratorCommand($app['files'])

5 );

Exercise

Now that the basics of creating commands are instilled, let’s move on to the chapter exercise. We’ll

use test-driven development to build a file generator that is similar to my popular Laravel Generators

tool³⁹. More specifically, we’ll create a package that allows the user to rapidly generate a new model,

using a base template as its contents.

Chances are high that, when writing new commands, you’ll want to share them. The easiest way

to do so is to create a package, using Laravel’s helpful workbench, push it to GitHub, and make it

available on Packagist.

This means that we’ll need to follow a slightly different process than was covered earlier in this

chapter.

Create the Package

Before calling Laravel’s workbench command, first, update app/config/workbench.php with your

name and email address. These values will be used, when Laravel scaffolds a new Composer package

for you.

³⁹https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-4-Generators

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 178

1 <?php // app/config/workbench.php

3 return array(

4 'name' => 'Jeffrey Way',

5 'email' => 'jeffrey@example.com',

6 );

Next, running php artisan help workbench, we can see that the command expects one argument:

the name of the vendor and package.

1 $ php artisan help workbench

2 package The name (vendor/name) of the package.

Typically, vendor will be the name of your company. Alternatively, feel free to use any identifier, or

even your last name, as I do.

Let’s try it:

1 $ php artisan workbench way/generators

2 Package workbench created!

3 Loading composer repositories with package information

4 Installing dependencies (including require-dev)

5 - Installing illuminate/support (dev-master cc16ed1)

6 Cloning cc16ed1445c39846c1c9aaccfc9f1648b28bf3c3

8 Writing lock file

9 Generating autoload files

This will generate a new workbench directory, along with the necessary folder structure (following

PSR-0) and files for rapidly preparing your package.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 179

Laravel’s workbench allows you to rapidly build new packages.

Generating the Command

Next, as we did earlier in the chapter, we’ll let Laravel handle the process of generating the boilerplate

code for our new model generator command. However, this time, as we don’t want the command to

be placed within app/commands, we need to specify a path to to the package directory. Luckily, the

command:make command accepts a --path option that allows for this.

1 php artisan command:make ModelGeneratorCommand --path="workbench/way/genera\

2 tors/src/Way/Generators/Commands"

For now, we’ll only add a name and description.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 180

1 // workbench/.../Way/Generators/Commands/ModelGeneratorCommand.php

3 protected $name = 'generate:model';

4 protected $description = 'Generate a new model.';

Service Providers

In the previous section, we used app/start/artisan.php to register the command with Artisan. This

time, though, we’ll store the instantiation process within a service provider. When Laravel scaffolded

your new package, it included a service provider class, GeneratorsServiceProvider. Think of this

file as the bootstrap for your package.

Definition: Service providers are simply bootstrap classes for packages. By default, they

contain two methods: boot and register. Within these methods you may do anything

you like: include a routes file, register bindings in the IoC container, attach to events, or

anything else you wish to do.

In the code below, we register the package’s Artisan commands, via the commands method on the

ServiceProvider class.

1 <?php // workbench/.../Way/Generators/GeneratorsServiceProvider.php

3 namespace Way\Generators;

5 use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;

7 class GeneratorsServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider {

8 protected $defer = false;

10 public function register()

11 {

12 $this->registerModelGeneratorCommand();

14 $this->commands(

15 'generate.model'

16 );

17 }

19 protected function registerModelGeneratorCommand()

20 {

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 181

21 $this->app['generate.model'] = $this->app->share(function($app)

22 {

23 return new ModelGeneratorCommand;

24 });

25 }

26 }

The final step - one that every user of the package must perform manually - is to add the service

provider to the providers array in app/config/app.php.

1 // app/config/app.php

3 'providers' => array(

4 // ....

5 'Way\Generators\GeneratorsServiceProvider'

6 )

All service providers listed here will automatically be loaded by Laravel.

It should now work! Run php artisan to ensure that it does.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 182

Tip: If distributing this package through Packagist, you’ll want to make a note

in your readme file that the user needs to add the necessary service provider to

app/config/app.php.

Testing Artisan Commands

So far in this chapter, we haven’t performed an ounce of testing. Now that you’re comfortable with

the basic workflow for creating commands and packages, let’s fix that!

The truth is that a command class shouldn’t be responsible for too much. As such, the tests for this

class will be fairly simple. Before moving forward, though, we first need to pull in two dependencies:

illuminate/console and mockery.

Open the package’s composer.json file (not the master composer.json file), and update the require

objects, like so:

1 "require": {

2 "php": ">=5.3.0",

3 "illuminate/support": "4.0.x",

4 "illuminate/console": "4.0.x"

5 },

6 "require-dev": {

7 "mockery/mockery": "dev-master"

8 }

This specifies that the package expects to have access to Illuminate’s console component, as well as

Mockery to behave as expected. Run composer update to pull in both of these.

Next, we’ll write the first test. When the workbench command generated the package, it also included

a folder for any tests. Within that directory, add a new commands/ModelGeneratorCommandTest.php

file.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 183

Notice how the directory structure of our tests mirror the production files.

Testing output to a console can get a bit tricky with PHPUnit, but, luckily, the Symfony team have

already considered this. Their console component provides a test helper that eases the process

considerably. For example, to test that a dummy command simply outputs The name argument

is foo, we could write:

1 <?php // workbench/.../tests/commands/ModelGeneratorCommandTest.php

3 use Way\Generators\Commands\ModelGeneratorCommand;

4 use Symfony\Component\Console\Tester\CommandTester;

6 class ModelGeneratorCommandTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

7 public function testOutput()

8 {

9 $tester = new CommandTester(new ModelGeneratorCommand);

11 # Pass in any arguments or options

12 $tester->execute(['name' => 'foo']);

14 $this->assertEquals(

15 "The name argument is foo\n",

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 184

16 $tester->getDisplay()

17 );

18 }

19 }

The most important bit of this code is that we instantiate Symfony’s CommandTester class, and

pass in an instance of the command that we wish to test - in this case, ModelGeneratorCommand.

We then trigger its execute method, providing any applicable arguments. Eventually, behind the

scenes, the fire method on your command will be triggered. Lastly, the getDisplay method on the

CommandTester instance is used to fetch any output.

In its current state, running phpunit will, of course, fail.

1 1) ModelGeneratorCommandTest::testOutput

2 Failed asserting that two strings are equal.

3 --- Expected

4 +++ Actual

5 @@ @@

6 -'The name argument is foo

7 +''

To make it pass, from the ModelGeneratorCommand command, we only need to print the necessary

string.

1 // workbench/.../Generators/Commands/ModelGeneratorCommand.php

3 public function fire()

4 {

5 $this->info('The name argument is ' . $this->argument('name'));

6 }

And that returns us to green! Congratulations; you’ve just tested your first dummy command.

Planning

Before writing a test, it’s always a smart idea to determine what you expect to happen. That’s one

of the core benefits to a TDD cycle. It forces you to think before you write. In this case, when the

command fires, I expect it to fetch the path and model name to generate, and then pass that data on

to a special model generator class that will take care of the rest. This way, we limit the command

class’s responsibility. Perhaps the generator will return a boolean, indicating whether or not the

model was created successfully.

Expectations

Now that we have a game plan, let’s use Mockery to prepare the first test: testGeneratesModelSuccesfully.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 185

1 <?php // workbench/.../tests/commands/ModelGeneratorCommandTest.php

3 use Way\Generators\Commands\ModelGeneratorCommand;

4 use Symfony\Component\Console\Tester\CommandTester;

5 use Mockery as m;

7 class ModelGeneratorCommandTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

8 public function tearDown()

9 {

10 m::close();

11 }

13 public function testGeneratesModelSuccessfully()

14 {

15 # We're not interested in testing the model generator yet.

16 $gen = m::mock('Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator');

18 # We only want to ensure that its make() method is called.

19 # We'll have it return true to mimic a positive outcome.

20 $gen->shouldReceive('make')

21 ->once()

22 ->with('app/models/Foo.php')

23 ->andReturn(true);

25 $command = new ModelGeneratorCommand($gen);

27 $tester = new CommandTester($command);

28 $tester->execute(['name' => 'foo']);

30 # Ensure that the proper response is printed.

31 $this->assertEquals(

32 "Created app/models/Foo.php\n",

33 $tester->getDisplay()

34 );

35 }

36 }

Dependency Injection

The first step to making this test pass is to ensure that the generator can be injected into the

ModelGeneratorCommand class through its constructor. This way, we can easily swap out the

generator with the mocked version, as illustrated above.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 186

1 // workbench/.../Generators/Commands/ModelGeneratorCommand.php

3 <?php namespace Way\Generators\Commands;

5 use Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator;

6 use Illuminate\Console\Command;

7 use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputOption;

8 use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputArgument;

10 class ModelGeneratorCommand extends Command {

11 protected $name = 'generate:model';

13 protected $description = 'Generate a new model.';

15 protected $generator;

17 public function __construct(ModelGenerator $generator)

18 {

19 parent::__construct();

21 $this->generator = $generator;

22 }

23 // ...

24 }

Generator Class

The next step is to create the generator class that will handle the process of creating the model with

the necessary boilerplate code. This will be placed in the Way/Generators/Generators directory.

1 <?php // workbench/.../Generators/Generators/ModelGenerator.php

3 namespace Way\Generators\Generators;

5 class ModelGenerator {

6 public function make() {}

7 }

That will do for now. Remember: we’re testing the command class, not the generator itself. That will

have its own tests, so don’t double-up!

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 187

Making the Test Pass

To make the test pass, we need to calculate the proper path to the model that should be created, and

send that on to the generator class.

Give the fire method below close inspection.

1 // workbench/.../Generators/Commands/ModelGeneratorCommand.php

3 <?php namespace Way\Generators\Commands;

5 use Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator;

6 use Illuminate\Console\Command;

7 use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputOption;

8 use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputArgument;

10 class ModelGeneratorCommand extends Command {

11 protected $name = 'generate:model';

13 protected $description = 'Generate a new model.';

15 protected $generator;

17 public function __construct(ModelGenerator $generator)

18 {

19 parent::__construct();

21 $this->generator = $generator;

22 }

24 public function fire()

25 {

26 $path = $this->getPath();

28 if ($this->generator->make($path))

29 {

30 $this->info("Created {$path}");

31 }

32 }

34 protected function getPath()

35 {

36 return $this->option('path') . '/' . ucwords($this->argument('name'\

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 188

37 )) . '.php';

38 }

40 protected function getArguments()

41 {

42 return array(

43 array(

44 'name',

45 InputArgument::REQUIRED,

46 'Name of the model to generate.'

47 ),

48 );

49 }

51 protected function getOptions()

52 {

53 return array(

54 array(

55 'path',

56 null,

57 InputOption::VALUE_OPTIONAL,

58 'Path to the models directory.',

59 'app/models'

60 )

61 );

62 }

63 }

Even though we haven’t yet built the generator class beyond its skeleton, phpunit should return

green! The reason is because the generator is being mocked with Mockery. The test merely ensures

that the make method on the generator class is called, and the necessary response is printed to the

console, assuming that the file was generated successfully.

But, what if the model generation was not successful? We need a test for that, too!

Tip: Always provide a test for each path through your code.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 189

1 // workbench/.../tests/commands/ModelGeneratorCommandTest.php

3 public function testAlertsUserIfModelGenerationFails()

4 {

5 $gen = m::mock('Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator');

7 # This time, simulate a failed result

8 $gen->shouldReceive('make')

9 ->once()

10 ->with('app/models/Foo.php')

11 ->andReturn(false);

13 $command = new ModelGeneratorCommand($gen);

15 $tester = new CommandTester($command);

16 $tester->execute(['name' => 'foo']);

18 # If generation failed, the output should indicate as much.

19 $this->assertEquals(

20 "Could not create app/models/Foo.php\n",

21 $tester->getDisplay()

22 );

23 }

Making this test pass is a cinch.

1 // workbench/.../Generators/Commands/ModelGeneratorCommand.php

3 public function fire()

4 {

5 $path = $this->getPath();

7 if ($this->generator->make($path))

8 {

9 return $this->info("Created {$path}");

10 }

12 $this->error("Could not create {$path}");

13 }

The final test for this class will assert that, if a custom path option is specified by the user, the getPath

method will respond, accordingly. I’m fairly certain that, as the code stands, this will already work,

but always feel free to write additional tests - if only for peace of mind.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 190

1 // workbench/.../tests/commands/ModelGeneratorCommandTest.php

3 public function testCanAcceptCustomPathToModelsDirectory()

4 {

5 $gen = m::mock('Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator');

7 # Ensure that the custom path to the directory is correct

8 $gen->shouldReceive('make')

9 ->once()

10 ->with('app/foo/models/Foo.php');

12 $command = new ModelGeneratorCommand($gen);

14 $tester = new CommandTester($command);

15 $tester->execute(['name' => 'foo', '--path' => 'app/foo/models']);

16 }

Without a single change, phpunit still returns green!

The only remaining thing to do is ensure that, when the ModelGeneratorCommand class is registered

with Artisan in the service provider, we also inject the ModelGenerator class. Remember: we got

away without doing this, because we manually injected a mocked version of the model generator

class.

1 <?php // workbench/.../Way/Generators/GeneratorsServiceProvider.php

2 namespace Way\Generators;

4 use Way\Generators\Commands\ModelGeneratorCommand;

5 use Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator;

6 use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;

8 class GeneratorsServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider {

9 protected $defer = false;

11 public function register()

12 {

13 $this->registerModelGeneratorCommand();

15 $this->commands(

16 'generate.model'

17 );

18 }

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 191

20 protected function registerModelGeneratorCommand()

21 {

22 $this->app['generate.model'] = $this->app->share(function($app)

23 {

24 # Inject the generator into the command

25 return new ModelGeneratorCommand(new ModelGenerator);

26 });

27 }

28 }

And with that, the ModelGeneratorCommand class (along with its associated tests) is finished! But,

certainly, we’re not done. So far, we’ve only mocked the model generator for the purposes of testing

the command. Next, we need to test the generator, itself.

Testing the Model Generator

To begin testing the model generator, we, of course, need a new test class, which can be stored within

the tests/generators/ directory.

1 <?php // tests/generators/ModelGeneratorTest.php

3 use Way\Generators\Generators\ModelGenerator;

4 use Mockery as m;

6 class ModelGeneratorTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

7 public function tearDown()

8 {

9 m::close();

10 }

11 }

The primary purpose of this class is to facilitate the process of compiling a model template with

the values provided by the user, and physically creating the file within the proper models directory.

With that in mind, the first test will be called testCanGenerateModelUsingTemplate.

1 // tests/generators/ModelGeneratorTest.php

3 public function testCanGenerateModelUsingTemplate() {}

We must be careful that our tests don’t actually create new files. This serves no purpose other than

to slow down the tests. This means that we’ll need to mock Laravel’s Filesystem class; however, in

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 192

order to make use of that class in our package, it needs to be required as a dependency. Don’t forget

that Laravel is composed of multiple components.

To pull in this package, simply require it within the package’s composer.json file, and run composer

update.

1 "require": {

2 "php": ">=5.3.0",

3 "illuminate/support": "4.0.x",

4 "illuminate/console": "4.0.x",

5 "illuminate/filesystem": "4.0.x"

6 }

Next, we need some means to verify that the compiled template matches our expected output.

To allow for this, we’ll add a tests/generators/stubs directory. This folder will only house a

model.txt stub, for the purposes of this tutorial.

1 <?php // tests/generators/stubs/model.txt

3 class Foo extends Eloquent {

5 }

The contents of this file represent the output that we expect to be written, when php artisan

generate:model foo is executed.

Now, we can simply mock the Filesystem, and ensure that its put method is called with the correct

path and data, accordingly.

1 // tests/generators/ModelGeneratorTest.php

3 public function testCanGenerateModelUsingTemplate()

4 {

5 $file = m::mock('Illuminate\Filesystem\Filesystem[put]');

7 $file->shouldReceive('put')

8 ->once()

9 ->with('app/models/Foo.php', file_get_contents(__DIR__.'/stubs/mod\

10 el.txt'));

12 $generator = new ModelGenerator($file);

13 $generator->make('app/models/Foo.php');

14 }

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 193

Tip: Mockery allows for partial mocks, by specifying a comma separated list of methods

to mock within brackets. All unlisted methods will continue to behave as they normally

would.

The code above specifies that, when the make method on the model generator is called, we expect

that the put method on Laravel’s helpful Filesystem class will be called. More importantly, though,

it should be called with the correct arguments: the name of the model to generate, and the contents

of the model stub that we created earlier.

Running the tests, as you might expect, will return red.

1 $ phpunit

3 1) ModelGeneratorTest::testCanGenerateModelUsingTemplate

4 Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method put("app/models/Foo.php", "\

5 <?php

7 class Foo extends Eloquent {

9 }") from Illuminate\Filesystem\Filesystem should be called

10 exactly 1 times but called 0 times.

It seems that Mockery expected the put method to be called with the proper arguments, but that

never occurred.

In order to make the test pass, we need a new templates directory that will house a stub for each

generator (we only have one for this chapter, but you could certainly add more on your own). Here’s

the template for generating a new model.

1 <?php // workbench/.../Generators/Generators/templates/model.txt

3 class {{name}} extends Eloquent {

5 }

Notice the {{name}} portion? Think of it as a placeholder that will ultimately be replaced with

the model name designated by the user, when running the command. Assuming php artisan

generate:model foo, {{name}} will be replaced with Foo.

Now, we have a link between the model template and the test stub. If it was compiled correctly, the

two should match!

At this point, we only need to write the necessary logic to fetch the compiled template, and pass its

contents on to the Filesystem’s put method. Give the following snippet some study time.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 194

1 <?php // workbench/.../Generators/Generators/ModelGenerator.php

3 namespace Way\Generators\Generators;

5 use Illuminate\Filesystem\Filesystem as File;

7 class ModelGenerator {

8 protected $file;

10 public function __construct(File $file)

11 {

12 $this->file = $file;

13 }

15 public function make($path)

16 {

17 $name = basename($path, '.php');

18 $template = $this->getTemplate($name);

20 if (! $this->file->exists($path))

21 {

22 return $this->file->put($path, $template);

23 }

25 return false;

26 }

28 protected function getTemplate($name)

29 {

30 $template = $this->file->get(__DIR__.'/templates/model.txt');

32 return str_replace('{{name}}', $name, $template);

33 }

34 }

The code is really quite simple. The getTemplate method fetches the model template and runs a

quick a search and replace on it, using the user’s provided model name. The results of this operation

will be passed on to the Filesystem’s put method, which we’ve mocked for the test. As noted earlier,

we don’t want to physically create this file; we merely need to ensure that the appropriate method

was, in fact, called.

That’s all it takes! We’re back to green! Don’t forget, though, that, because the model generator

expects an instance of Filesystem upon instantiation, we need to update the service provider to

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 195

pass it in.

1 // workbench/.../Way/Generators/GeneratorsServiceProvider.php

3 protected function registerModelGenerator()

4 {

5 $this->app['generate.model'] = $this->app->share(function($app)

6 {

7 $generator = new ModelGenerator($app['files']);

9 return new ModelGeneratorCommand($generator);

10 });

11 }

That should do it! The tests pass; the only remaining thing to do is try it out for real! cd to the root

of your application, and run:

php artisan generate:model foo.

As our tests proved would happen, app/models/Foo.php will be created with the following

boilerplate:

1 <?php

3 class Foo extends Eloquent {

5 }

Go ahead and try out a few inversions of the command to prove that everything is functioning as

expected.

Chapter 12: Test-Driving Artisan Commands Exercise 196

Great work!

Summary

In this chapter, we leveraged Symfony’s Console component to build a model generator with tests.

Testing console output can be a bit tricky, but, luckily, the Symfony team already considered this,

and included a CommandTester class to ease the process considerably.

Now, even your custom Artisan commands will be test-driven!

Chapter 13: Testing APIs

Testing an API isn’t overly different from any other form of functional testing: seed the database,

it really couldn’t be simpler!

APIs in Laravel

One of the wonderful things about Laravel is that it was so clearly created (and updated) to remedy

real-world problems and irritations. As a result, often, you’ll find that implementing a particular

piece of functionality doesn’t require more than a few moments. Building APIs is no different. In

fact, as I was writing the demo API for this chapter, I found myself laughing at how easy it is. Even

five years ago, in PHP, this would have required the better part of a day to implement. Luckily, those

days are gone.

Three Components to Writing an API in Laravel

Coding an API from scratch is beyond the scope of this chapter (though I’ll cover the process

considerably on Tuts+ Premium⁴⁰ in July, 2013). That said, I’d be remiss not to review the essential

components.

1. Authentication

One of Laravel 4’s excellent new features is support for basic HTTP authentication. In addition to

offering an easy way to create a private section of your web site (when a full login system isn’t

necessary), HTTP-based authentication can also be a perfect choice for simple APIs.

Triggering basic auth only requires that you reference a native filter: auth.basic. Here’s an example:

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('admin', ['before' => 'auth.basic', function()

4 {

5 return 'Secret admin page.';

6 }]);

⁴⁰http://tutsplus.com

197

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 198

Believe it or not, that’s all you need to password-protect a page or group! Laravel for the win!

HTTP authentication

To instead reference this filter from your controllers, use the beforeFilter method within the

controller’s constructor, like so:

1 class MyController {

2 public function __construct()

3 {

4 $this->beforeFilter('auth.basic');

5 }

6 }

Now, each route will be protected with basic authentication.

So, how might we leverage this functionality for authenticating API users? Quite simply, in fact:

create a resource, and reference the filter before all applicable routes.

The route:

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::resource('photos', 'PhotosApiController');

And then the controller:

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 199

1 // app/controllers/PhotosApiController.php

3 class PhotosApiController {

4 public function __construct()

5 {

6 $this->beforeFilter('auth.basic');

7 }

8 }

Alternatively, to prevent Laravel from setting a user identifier cookie in the session, you could create

another filter within app/filters.php and reference that.

1 Route::filter('auth.basic.once', function()

2 {

3 return Auth::onceBasic();

4 });

This technique is particularly effective for APIs.

Tip: Basic authentication for an API is the easiest way of verifying a user, however, it’s

not overly secure. For more significant APIs, you’ll likely want to instead opt for an

API key and secret. Nonetheless, as this chapter isn’t dedicated to API design, let’s keep

things simple and stick with basic HTTP authentication.

2. Route Prefixing

As this is an API, it’s a smart idea to future-proof it by nesting the associated routes, using a prefix,

such as api/v1.

1 Route::group(['prefix' => 'api/v1'], function() {

2 Route::resource('photos', 'PhotosApiController');

3 });

Pay close attention to the naming convention for this prefix. By adopting a consistent pattern, such

as api/v1 or api/v2, we’re able to extend the API’s functionality in the future, while continuing to

provide a consistent interface for those who are still dependent upon an older version of the API.

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 200

Using a prefix for API calls allows for future extensibility.

3. Return JSON

Though you could provide support for returning both XML and JSON from your API, why bother?

It’s 2013: stick with JSON-only. Besides, what kind of developer prefers XML over JSON when

querying a web service? I haven’t met these fictional creatures.

By default, when a collection is returned from a controller method, that data will be translated into

JSON. This means, if you want to return a JSON-representation for a user with an id of 1, you’d

only need to write:

1 public function show($id)

2 {

3 return User::find($id); // returns JSON

4 }

However, convenient as this is, when building APIs, you’ll likely want to provide additional feedback

to the API-caller. To manually return a JSON response from a route, use the json method on the

Response class. Here’s an example that fetches all photos for the authenticated user, and returns a

JSON response.

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 201

1 class PhotosApiController extends \BaseController {

2 public function index()

3 {

4 return Response::json([

5 'error' => false,

6 'photos' => Auth::user()->photos->toArray()

7 ], 200);

8 }

9 }

Don’t forget: once a user has been authenticated, you may access their associated user object with

Auth::user(). In effect, to capture the id of the authenticated user, use Auth::user()->id.

Assuming that all photos are publicly viewable, this will work perfectly; however, if your web app

instead limits a photo’s visibility to the user associated with the photo, then don’t forget to leverage

the authentication filter that we reviewed in the previous section.

1 class PhotosApiController extends \BaseController {

2 public function __construct()

3 {

4 $this->beforeFilter('auth.basic');

5 }

7 public function index()

8 {

9 return Response::json([

10 'error' => false,

11 'photos' => Auth::user()->photos->toArray()

12 ], 200);

13 }

14 }

The easiest way to test a web service is with curl⁴¹. In the image below, notice how, with very little

code, we were able to correctly respond to incorrect and valid credentials.

⁴¹http://curl.haxx.se/

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 202

Use curl to test your API

Testing APIs

While, as you’ll find, testing an API is relatively straight-forward, there are, nonetheless, a few best

practices to consider.

Use a Database in Memory

As these are functional tests, we’ll of course be hitting a database. If you haven’t already, first ensure

that you’ve created a test database, along with its respective configuration file.

Did You Know?: When unit testing, Laravel will automatically set the environment

to testing, and, subsequently, override all production configuration files with the ones

stored in app/config/testing.

Assuming that your API is mostly CRUD-based, chances are high that you can opt for a Sqlite

database in memory, which should provide a performance boost (though I’ve seen mixed bench-

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 203

marks). To instruct Laravel to use a DB in memory, update app/config/testing/database.php to

set a new default driver for testing.

1 <?php // app/config/testing/database.php

3 return array(

4 'default' => 'sqlite',

6 'connections' => array(

7 'sqlite' => array(

8 'driver' => 'sqlite',

9 'database' => ':memory:',

10 'prefix' => '',

11 )

12 )

13 );

Pay close attention to the fact that, rather than setting the database key to a .sqlite file, instead,

a database in memory is specified. With this modification, when testing, Laravel will automatically

set the environment to testing and reference the in-memory DB.

Migrate the Database for Each Test

As we plan to reference a database in memory, it’s important to migrate and seed the database before

each test, like so:

1 class PhotosApiTest extends TestCase {

2 public function setUp()

3 {

4 parent::setUp();

6 Artisan::call('migrate');

7 $this->seed();

8 }

9 }

The above code leverage the Artisan facade to call the migrate command (php artisan migrate).

This will construct all necessary tables. Secondly. the seed() method is used to populate the tables

with seed records (if applicable). Alternatively, you could do Artisan::call('db:seed').

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 204

Enable Filters

One pitfall that you’ll undoubtedly come across is when Laravel seemingly ignores route filters

when unit testing. As a result, when testing your API, even though you may expect a test to fail

authentication, PHPUnit will still return green (because the filter never fired)! Yikes!

To compensate for this, before each test, always activate the filters.

1 public function setUp()

2 {

3 parent::setUp();

5 Route::enableFilters();

6 }

Set the Authenticated User

Lastly, when testing APIs that require authentication, specify an authenticated user before each test.

Let’s say that you want to set the currently logged in user to the one with an id of 1. There are two

ways to do this:

1 $this->be(User::find(1));

2 // Or:

3 Auth::loginUsingId(1);

Test Examples

With a few guidelines in place, let’s review some examples!

User Must Be Authenticated

In our fictional photo storage app, we’ve decided that access to all photos should be limited to the

user in which they’re associated. As such, a good first test to write is one that asserts that, if a

particular route is requested, and credentials are not provided, Invalid Credentials will be returned.

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 205

1 // app/tests/api/PhotoApiTest.php

3 class PhotoApiTest extends TestCase {

5 public function setUp()

6 {

7 parent::setUp();

9 Route::enableFilters();

11 Artisan::call('migrate');

12 $this->seed();

14 Auth::loginUsingId(1);

15 }

17 public function testMustBeAuthenticated()

18 {

19 // Most tests will assume a logged in user

20 // But not this one.

21 Auth::logout();

23 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

25 $this->assertEquals('Invalid credentials.', $response->getContent()\

26 );

27 }

28 }

Pretty simple, ay?

Check For Error

Please note that, for all remaining tests, the setUp() method will be assumed.

Let’s write a test that verifies whether an error property exists on the returned object. This should

provide some added feedback as to whether the request was successful or not.

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 206

1 public function testProvidesErrorFeedback()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

4 $data = json_decode($response->getContent());

6 $this->assertEquals(false, $data->error);

7 }

Fetch All Photos For the Authenticated User

Next, we need a test that fetches all photos for an authenticated users, and verifies whether the

correct JSON is returned.

1 public function testFetchesAllPhotosForUser()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

4 $content = $response->getContent();

5 $data = json_decode($content);

7 // Did we receive valid JSON?

8 $this->assertJson($content);

10 // Decoded JSON should offer a photos array

11 $this->assertInternalType('array', $data->photos);

12 }

When testing an API, one of the most important assertions you can make is one that verifies whether

real JSON was returned. Luckily, as of PHPUnit v3.7, an assertJson method is available.

Refactoring

Already, though, I can see that some cleanup is in order. If the tests return green, I’m free to refactor.

Let’s break this into pieces.

Here’s a new test that verifies whether valid JSON was returned from the request.

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 207

1 public function testReturnsValidJson()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

5 $this->assertJson($response->getContent());

6 }

Next, one for verifying that the photos array is available.

1 public function testFetchesPhotos()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

4 $data = json_decode($response->getContent());

6 $this->assertInternalType('array', $data->photos);

7 }

Or, if you’re feeling particularly rambunctious, you could write an assertion that decodes a JSON

string, and validates whether a particular key exists on it. You crazy kid.

1 public function testFetchesPhotos()

2 {

3 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos');

5 $this->assertJsonStringHasKey('photos', $response->getContent());

6 }

8 protected function assertJsonStringHasKey($key, $json)

9 {

10 $data = json_decode($json);

12 $this->assertInternalType('array', $data->$key);

13 }

Updating a Photo

Sure, fetching a list of your photos is great, but what about creating or updating? Making such a

request with curl might take the form of:

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 208

1 curl -X PATCH --user jeffrey@envato.com:1234 -d "caption='Changed my photo'\

2 " localhost:8000/api/v1/photos/1

When working with curl, -X refers to the request type (PUT, DELETE, etc.), and -d is for data that

should be sent through.

The following example will set a factory for a Photo and save it to the DB, and then call the necessary

API route to update the record.

1 public function testUpdatesExistingPhoto()

2 {

3 // Poor man's factory

4 $photo = new Photo;

5 $photo->caption = 'Some Photo';

6 $photo->path = 'foo.jpg';

7 $photo->user_id = 1;

8 $photo->save();

10 $updatedPhotoFields = ['caption' => 'Updated Photo Caption'];

12 $response = $this->call('PATCH', 'api/v1/photos/1', $updatedPhotoFields\

13 );

15 $data = json_decode($response->getContent());

17 $this->assertEquals('Photo has been updated', $data->message);

18 $this->assertEquals('Updated Photo Caption', Photo::find(1)->caption);

19 }

Notice how we’re passing the parameters as the third argument to the call method. From the

controller, you can capture these values as you normally would when responding to a form’s

submission.

1 $fields = Request::get(); // Or Input::get() if you prefer

2 $caption = Request::get('caption');

Once the route has been triggered, we merely inspect the returned JSON and ensure that the message

is equal to “Photo has been updated.”

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 209

Factories

In the previous snippet, we used what I’d refer to as a poor man’s factory. Let’s clean that up using

my Factory class that we reviewed in a previous chapter. You can pull it into your project by either

installing Laravel 4 Generators⁴² (which includes the package) or Laravel Test Helpers⁴³. Personally,

I use the custom generators in every project, so that’s what we’ll use here.

Definition: In the simplest possible terms, a factory manages the creation of objects

with dummy data.

To replace this big chunk of code:

1 // Poor man's factory

2 $photo = new Photo;

3 $photo->caption = 'Some Photo';

4 $photo->path = 'foo.jpg';

5 $photo->user_id = 1;

6 $photo->save();

We only need to write:

1 Way\Tests\Factory::create('Photo');

Or, better yet, use the class at the top of the file.

1 use Way\Tests\Factory;

2 // ...

3 Factory::create('Photo');

This will achieve the exact same result as what we had before, except, this time, the class will fake

the values for each field. To override any fields, pass an array as the second argument to the create

method, like so:

1 Factory::create('Photo', ['caption' => 'Some caption']);

With this modification, the testUpdatesExistingPhoto spec may be updated to:

⁴²https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-4-Generators

⁴³https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Test-Helpers

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 210

1 public function testUpdatesExistingPhoto()

2 {

3 Factory::create('Photo');

4 $updatedPhotoFields = ['caption' => 'Updated Photo Caption'];

6 $response = $this->call('PUT', 'api/v1/photos/1', $updatedPhotoFields);

7 $data = json_decode($response->getContent());

9 $this->assertEquals('Photo has been updated', $data->message);

10 $this->assertEquals('Updated Photo Caption', Photo::find(1)->caption);

11 }

Specifying Options

Basic API design dictates that options should be declared within the query string. Try not to use

verbs within your URIs. As such:

1 api/v1/photos?color=green

…is clearly a smarter choice than:

1 api/v1/getGreenPhotos

Hopefully, that goes without saying. Let’s write a test that specifies a limit for the number of photos

that should be returned.

1 public function testCanSetALimit()

2 {

3 // Give a new user two photos

4 Factory::create('User');

5 Factory::create('Photo', ['user_id' => '1']);

6 Factory::create('Photo', ['user_id' => '1']);

8 // Declare a limit of 1

9 $response = $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/photos?limit=1');

10 $data = json_decode($response->getContent());

12 // Verify that the photos array count is 1, not 2

13 $this->assertCount(1, $data->photos);

14 }

To implement this type of functionality, we might write:

Chapter 13: Testing APIs 211

1 public function index()

2 {

3 $photos = Auth::user()->photos();

4 $photos = $this->applyOptions($photos);

6 return Response::json([

7 'error' => false,

8 'photos' => $photos->get()->toArray()

9 ], 200);

10 }

12 protected function applyOptions($photos)

13 {

14 if ($limit = Request::get('limit'))

15 $photos->take($limit);

17 return $photos;

18 }

Summary

One thing worth noting is that we exclusively relied upon functional (or some might refer to

this as integration) testing. In a real-world project, you’d likely want to create unit tests for the

PhotosApiController class as well, providing the best of both worlds.

In this chapter, we used a Sqlite database in memory and Factories to test a fictional photos API. As

I noted at the beginning, the basic process should be quite familiar to you at this point. Really, it’s

no different than any other type of testing: arrange, act, and then assert (AAA).

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With

Codeception

By itself, PHPUnit does not offer too many helpers for writing functional tests. In a previous chapter,

we made use of a couple Symfony components to inspect the DOM (BrowserKit and DomCrawler),

however, the process was, in this author’s opinion, still too cumbersome. As they say, the more

difficult a test is to write, the more likely it is that the test simply won’t be written. Wouldn’t it be

amazing if we could interact with our web apps on a high level using a simple, readable interface

that even non-developers could parse? Codeception, which builds upon popular components, like

PHPUnit and Mink, is the solution.

codeception.com

“Codeception is kept as simple as possible for any kind of user. PHP developers, QAs, and

managers can use Codeception. The only requirements are a basic knowledge of PHP,

and theory of automated testing. Its configuration is kept short; all common issues are

already solved.” - codeception.com⁴⁴

⁴⁴http://codeception.com/

212

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 213

An Amuse Bouche

Before we dig further into how Codeception allows us to better test our applications, here’s a quick

teaser of the syntax. As a hello world example, let’s say we want to ensure that, when /login is

requested, the text, “Login”, is displayed. Using Codeception, we could write:

1 $I = new WebGuy($scenario);

2 $I->amOnPage('/login');

3 $I->see('Login');

Notice how readable that is! Codeception places a significant emphasis on readability. Strip away

as much clutter as possible, and get right down to what you need to test. It even goes so far as to

recommend that you use an $I variable when instantiating your scenarios. This is because they’re

meant to mimic the feature requests that your client might give you. For example:

1 When I am on the login page

2 I expect to see the text Login

While tools like Cucumber emphasize plain text scenarios, Codeception tweaks the formula just a bit

to remove any potential duplication. Even better, if needed, it can auto-generate plain-text scenarios.

1 codecept generate:scenarios

But this is just the tip of the iceberg; Codeception can make assertions against what’s stored in the

database, perform AJAX requests, submit forms, click links, and much more…all using the same

basic syntax demonstrated above.

Testing Refresher

So far in this book, we’ve mostly focused on testing in isolation. There’s a reason for this: roughly

eighty percent of your tests should be unit tests. These need to be greased lightning fast, so that you

can easily run the full suite each time a file is saved.

Surprised that this percentage is so high? Well think about it: if we were building a time machine,

we’d definitely want to run some tests for ensuring that the car works correctly for the customer

(Marty). For instance:

• Get in the car

• Put key into ignition and start car

• Turn on the time circuits

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 214

• Set date to November 5th, 1955

• Ensure that flux capacitor is fluxing

• Step on the gas

• Accelerate to 88mph

• Assert that electric sparks fly

This is an acceptance test! Notice how it flexes the entire system (or Delorean). This is probably a

good test to write! But what happens if, for some reason, the car doesn’t move when you step on the

gas? In the real-world, slamming your head into the steering wheel won’t magically fix things. How

could you immediately detect what went wrong? It could be a loose wire, could be a faulty pedal,

gas might not be getting to the engine thing (I know nothing about cars - hence, “engine thing”),

who knows? So it seems that testing from a bird-eye level, though incredibly important, also has the

unavoidable side effect of being a high level test. From way up there, you can’t see a thing.

From this, we can deduce that, even though this test is essential, we also require lower level tests,

which ensure that each component of the car - the starter, the fuel injection manifold (I know that

one from Back to the Future 3), the radio - functions as expected.

The key is to find the perfect ratio of unit tests, versus functional and acceptance tests. As a basic

rule of thumb (remember that rules may be broken), plan on the number of unit test lines being the

same as your production code. 80% unit, with the remainder dedicated to integration, functional,

and acceptance tests.

Acceptance Testing

Acceptance tests execute code from the outside in, and will run in an environment that is as close

to production as possible. This means that they will hit the database, query real web services, etc. In

effect, they provide incredibly accurate and real-world results, but, as a side effect, have no choice but

to be orders of magnitude slower than your unit tests, which can be executed in a matter of seconds.

If these were the only tests you wrote, they would break the incremental TDD cycle. Waiting even

ten seconds for tests to run is out of the question.

To easily remember what acceptance testing refers to, lock on to the word, accept. When building

new features, the customer (whoever that might be) will typically describe the functionality that

they require. We refer to these as user stories.

1 As a user

2 To more easily consume Tuts+ Premium content

3 I want to download each course as a zip file

Notice how these stories are quite generalized - almost like a roadmap that charts out where you

currently are, and where you’re going. They don’t delve into the specifics (when I view this page, I

want to see a download button that links to the course’s zip file). There’s a time and place to fetch

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 215

that information from the customer. But, to start, a user story should be condensed. Think of it as a

newspaper’s two sentence description of some new movie that’s out in theaters.

Though it doesn’t always play out this way in real life (not your fault), presumably, once this test

passes, the feature has been fully implemented, and should be acceptable to the customer. If it isn’t

acceptable, then, at some point, wires became crossed, and the spec wasn’t written correctly.

“I’ve implemented the feature you requested. Do you accept that it works as expected?”

Tools like Cucumber were specifically written to give managers and quality assurance folks the

ability to write these high-level tests for you, themselves. It’s a cute end-goal, but, I’ve yet to meet

a team that functioned in this way. 95% of the time, you’ll find yourself (or someone else on your

team) writing the acceptance test, based upon prior discussions with the clients.

Tools like Cucumber were specifically written to give managers and quality assurance folks the ability to write

these high-level tests themselves.

Installation

As with any new tool, before we can dig in, we first need to install Codeception. Like Composer,

there are a couple different ways to download it.

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 216

Global Installation

One way to install Codeception is to manually fetch its archive file.

1 wget http://codeception.com/codecept.phar

Next, you’ll probably want to move it somewhere permanent, so that it can be referenced globally.

1 mv codecept.phar /usr/local/bin/codecept

Finally, don’t forget to ensure that it’s executable.

1 chmod +x /usr/local/bin/codecept

That should do it! Test it out by creating a new tab and running codecept. If installed correctly,

you’ll see a list of all available commands.

Installing Codeception globally

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 217

Local Installation

A second way that we can pull in Codeception is through Composer⁴⁵.

We first update the composer.json file to reference the Codeception package (I’ll be using version

1.6.11 in this chapter).

1 "require": {

2 "laravel/framework": "4.0.*"

3 },

4 "require-dev": {

5 "codeception/codeception": "1.6.1.1"

6 },

Next, of course, we update Composer to download the new package.

1 composer update

And that’s it! The codecept executable will be located at vendor/bin/codecept. To view the list of

commands (as we did before), either add vendor/bin to your system path, or reference its full path,

like so:

1 vendor/bin/codecept

Success!

⁴⁵https://packagist.org/packages/codeception/codeception

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 218

Codeception’s list of commands

Now that we’ve successfully installed it on our system, let’s do some testing.

Bootstrapping

Codeception is a full-stack testing framework and needs to be initialized for each new project.

1 codecept bootstrap

This command will dynamically generate a number of files within a tests/ directory. For language-

agnostic projects, this will do just fine; however, for Laravel applications, we want these files to be

placed within app/tests. As such, when bootstrapping, be sure to include the path argument to

explicity set a custom install path.

1 codecept bootstrap app

Upon running this command, a suite of files will be added to the app/tests directory.

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 219

After running codecept bootstrap app

Specifically, make note of how tests are divided into unit, functional, and acceptance. As we reviewed

earlier in this book, this is a popular convention that provides an easy way to execute a specific suite

of tests. When writing unit tests, you likely don’t want to wait for the slow acceptance tests to run

as well!

Configuring Acceptance Tests

Because acceptance tests work from the outside in, for Codeception to run properly, you need

to be running a server (php artisan serve), and must provide the URL for your app within

app/tests/acceptance.suite.yml.

1 class_name: WebGuy

2 modules:

3 enabled:

4 - PhpBrowser

5 - WebHelper

6 config:

7 PhpBrowser:

8 url: 'http://localhost:8000'

While you’re here, make a mental note that each suite’s functionality may be extended with modules.

We’ll review this more shortly.

Generate a Test

Let’s write one dummy test to observe the basic cycle, and then we’ll move on to real-world tests.

Tests may be created in two ways: manually or generated. The only difference is that, when using

the latter approach, Codeception will provide a couple lines of boilerplate code to get you started.

Either method will do just fine.

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 220

Manual Approach

Create a new file, app/tests/acceptance/WelcomeCept.php, and append:

1 <?php

3 $I = new WebGuy($scenario);

4 $I->wantTo('Check the home page for a welcome message');

5 $I->amOnPage('/');

6 $I->see('Welcome');

Generator Approach

From the command line, run:

1 codecept generate:cept acceptance Welcome

If this command is run from the root of your Laravel application, a configuration exception will

be thrown, noting that Codeception could not locate the codeception.yml file. This is because we

set a custom path to the install directory. To compensate, use the -c option to set the path to the

configuration file as well.

1 codecept generate:cept acceptance Welcome -c app

This can get cumbersome, though. That’s a lot to write for the sole purpose of generating a single

file with two lines of boilerplate code. Let’s make a couple of changes to remove the need to specify

the path to the configuration file.

Move app/codeception.yml to the root of your project.

1 mv app/codeception.yml codeception.yml

Next, update this file, and, within the paths object, replace all references to tests/ with app/tests,

like so:

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 221

1 paths:

2 tests: app/tests

3 log: app/tests/_log

4 data: app/tests/_data

5 helpers: app/tests/_helpers

That should do it! Now, we can simply write:

1 codecept generate:cept acceptance Welcome

This will generate app/tests/acceptance/WelcomeCept.php with:

1 <?php

3 $I = new WebGuy($scenario);

4 $I->wantTo('perform actions and see result');

Decoding the Command

The generate command consists of a few components.

• The name of the command to run (generate:cept). Codeception supports two different

formats: Cept and Cest. We’ll review both of these in the coming chapters.

• The name of the suite to add the file to (unit, functional, acceptance)

• The name of the test.

Decoding the command

Both the manual and generate approach will achieve the same end result. It’s up to you to decide

which method you most prefer.

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 222

Writing the First Test

Depending on which method you chose for creating a new acceptance test, ensure that the

acceptance/WelcomeCept.php file contains:

1 <?php

3 $I = new WebGuy($scenario);

4 $I->wantTo('Check the home page for a welcome message');

5 $I->amOnPage('/');

6 $I->see('Welcome');

The wonderful thing about scenario-based tests in Codeception is that the methods above don’t

require much explanation; they’re self explanatory.

Notice how all tests are written in present tense - $I->see() rather than $I->shouldSee().

The only method that may require further explanation is wantTo(). Though it isn’t required, it does

help to provide a better description for the test, when viewing the results. For example:

With:

1 1) Couldn't check the home page for a welcome message in WelcomeCept.php

Without:

1 1) WelcomeCept.php

As a best practice, opt for readability and always include this method call.

Running All Tests

The codecept run command may be used to trigger all tests in your application.

1 codecept run

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 223

Running tests

In the image above, notice how Codeception will highlight the scenario step that it failed on. This

can be incredibly helpful when determining exactly what went wrong. In this case, Codeception

failed to find Welcome in the response.

Technically, this is a bit misleading. Even if no / route exists, step one will seemingly

pass. To ensure that the response code is correct, you may use the seeResponseCodeIs(200)

method.

To make the test pass, we only need to create a route that returns the string, Welcome.

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('/', function()

4 {

5 return 'Welcome';

6 });

And we’re green!

Chapter 14: Acceptance Testing With Codeception 224

1 Suite acceptance started

2 Trying to check the home page for a welcome message (WelcomeCept.php) - Ok

4 Suite functional started

5 Suite unit started

7 Time: 0 seconds, Memory: 9.50Mb

8 OK (1 test, 2 assertions)

It’s so easy!

Tip: By default, all test suites will be triggered when running codecept run. To

override this, as the first argument to the run command, specify the name of the suite

to run: codecept run acceptance. This will, in effect, only trigger the tests within

app/tests/acceptance. For further filtering, a second argument may be passed, which

will specify the name of the single test to run. Don’t forget that you can view the

documentation for any command by preceding its name with help: codecept help run.

Summary

In this chapter, we reviewed the absolute basics of testing with Codeception, but, clearly, there is

much more to cover.

With the basic syntax under your fingers, in the next Exercise chapter, we’ll continue using

acceptance testing to build a relatively simple login form with authentication.

Chapter 15: Authentication With

Codeception Exercise

Because features - and acceptance testing in general - come with a relatively significant performance

cost, it’s important to limit them to regions of your application that require them. This can include

everything from authentication, to billing, to implementing a new feature for your web app. In other

words, verifying every possible path is not something that should be done on the acceptance testing

level. That’s what all the other styles of testing are for.

You see, when coding, you’ll find yourself writing tests that span the full spectrum of the application:

some acceptance tests to define the end goal for the customer, unit tests to ensure that each

component works correctly, some integration tests for verifying the integration of two or more

classes, etc.

Perhaps you’re still wondering why anything but acceptance tests are necessary. I asked this very

question at one point in my learning. Why not write a few tests that describe the completed feature,

and then code away until those pass? Well, there’s a variety of reasons why we don’t do this. But,

as with anything, the best way to learn why is through experience. In this chapter, we’ll exclusively

use acceptance tests to build a login feature for a client. As you work along, hopefully, you’ll begin

to realize where acceptance tests fall short (speed and feedback).

The Feature

Let’s imagine that our fictional customer would like to have a new private (password-protected)

administration area for their website. The user story might be:

1 In order to perform administrative tasks

2 As the site owner

3 I want to login to a password-protected private area

Translating the Feature for Codeception

The first step is to create a new acceptance test. We’ll use the Cest format in this chapter, which

allows each path to be contained more traditionally within a class method.

1 codecept generate:cest acceptance Login

Using Codeception, the above user story may be translated to:

225

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 226

1 $I->am('Site Owner');

2 $I->wantTo('login to a password-protected area');

3 $I->lookForwardTo('perform administrative tasks');

Think of the code above less as performing a specific action, and more defining the story background.

At this point, at a high level, we can write code to interact with the web application in the same

way that a human being might. This is why these types of tests are referred to as executing from the

outside-in: they exercise the entire application, rather than one or two components (which would

be integration testing).

Below is our first test for logging in with proper credentials.

1 <?php // app/tests/acceptance/LoginCest.php

3 class LoginCest {

5 public function logsInUserWithProperCredentials(WebGuy $I) {

6 $I->am('Site Owner');

7 $I->wantTo('login to a password-protected area');

8 $I->lookForwardTo('perform administrative tasks');

10 $I->amOnPage('/admin');

11 $I->seeCurrentUrlEquals('/login');

13 $I->fillField('email', 'jeffrey@envato.com');

14 $I->fillField('password', '1324');

15 $I->click('Login');

17 $I->seeCurrentUrlEquals('/admin');

18 $I->see('Admin Area', 'h1');

19 }

21 }

Again, notice how, even if you weren’t a developer, you could probably figure out what this code

does.

1. Vist the admin page, but expect to be redirected to the login page, as it should be protected.

2. Fill out the username and password, and click the Login button

3. Expect to be redirected to ‘/admin’, and see the text, Admin Area

Running the tests at this point will, of course, lead to failure.

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 227

1 1) Couldn't login to a password-protected area in LoginCest.loginWithProper\

2 Credentials

3 Guy couldn't see current url equals "/login": Failed asserting that two str\

4 ings are equal.

5 --- Expected

6 +++ Actual

7 @@ @@

8 -'/login'

9 +'/admin'

11 Scenario Steps:

12 4. I see current url equals "/login" <-- RED

13 3. I am on page "/admin"

14 2. So that I perform administrative tasks

15 1. As a Site Owner

Looks like we have our first step!

According to the tests, we require two routes:

1. /admin - Should be auth protected

2. /login - For creating a new user session

Per usual, these can be added to app/routes.php.

1 <?php // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('admin', ['before' => 'auth', function()

4 {

5 // Temporary

6 return '<h1>Admin Area</h1>';

7 }]);

9 Route::get('login', function()

10 {

11 return View::make('sessions.create');

12 });

If we run the tests again, we’ll receive the next step:

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 228

1 1) Couldn't login to a password-protected area in LoginCest.loginWithProper\

2 Credentials

3 Guy couldn't fill field "email","jeffrey@envato.com": Field matching id|nam\

4 e|label|value or css or xpath selector does not exist

6 Scenario Steps:

7 5. I fill field "email","jeffrey@envato.com" <-- RED

8 4. I see current url equals "/login"

9 3. I am on page "/admin"

10 2. So that I perform administrative tasks

11 1. As a Site Owner

Clearly, Codeception can’t fill in form fields that don’t exist.

Building the Form

The next step is to add the login form. As this project doesn’t have a master page, let’s keep things

simple and embed the full HTML here.

1

2 <!doctype html>

3 <html>

4 <head>

5 <meta charset="utf-8">

6 <title>Login</title>

7 </head>

9 <body>

10 <h1>Login</h1>

12 {{ Form::open() }}

13 <div>

14 {{ Form::label('email', 'Email') }}

15 {{ Form::text('email') }}

16 </div>

18 <div>

19 {{ Form::label('password', 'Password') }}

20 {{ Form::password('password') }}

21 </div>

23 <div>

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 229

24 {{ Form::submit('Login') }}

25 </div>

26 {{ Form::close() }}

27 </body>

28 </html>

Should we run the tests now, we’ll see that, when the form was submitted, Codeception expected to

be redirected to /admin, but was not.

1 Scenario Steps:

2 8. I see current url equals "/admin" <-- RED

3 7. I click "Login"

4 6. I fill field "password","1324"

5 5. I fill field "email","jeffrey@envato.com"

6 4. I see current url equals "/login"

7 3. I am on page "/admin"

8 2. So that I perform administrative tasks

Resources

To make this test pass, we first need a new resourceful controller for managing user sessions.

1 php artisan controller:make SessionsController

We also need to update the routes file to register these routes.

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::resource('sessions', 'SessionsController');

Now, we can update the view, and specify that the form should POST to the store method of

SessionsController.

1 {{ Form::open(['method' => 'post', 'route' => 'sessions.store']) }}

Authenticating the User

In order to write authentication code, we first needs a users table within our test database. My

Laravel 4 Generators⁴⁶ tool is the quickest way to tackle tasks like this:

⁴⁶https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-4-Generators

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 230

1 php artisan generate:migration create_users_table --fields="email:string:un\

2 ique, password:string"

This takes care of the migration and schema, but we also need a test record within this table. Laravel

offers seed files for this very purpose.

1 php artisan generate:seed Users

This command will generate the following boilerplate, excluding the test record that I’ve already

inserted.

1 <?php // app/database/seeds/UserTableSeeder.php

3 class UsersTableSeeder extends Seeder {

5 public function run()

6 {

7 $user = new User;

8 $user->email = 'joe@example.com';

9 $user->password = Hash::make('1234');

10 $user->save();

11 }

13 }

Adding a Test Database

Before moving forward, ensure that you have a test database setup. This can be accomplished by

creating app/config/testing/database.php. This will have the effect of overriding the default DB

settings.

1 <?php // app/config/testing/database.php

3 return array(

4 'connections' => array(

5 'mysql' => array(

6 'driver' => 'mysql',

7 'host' => 'localhost',

8 'database' => 'my-test-db',

9 'username' => 'root',

10 'password' => '1234',

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 231

11 'charset' => 'utf8',

12 'collation' => 'utf8_unicode_ci',

13 'prefix' => '',

14 )

15 )

16 );

Be sure to replace the credentials above with your own. Also, Codeception needs to know these

details as well. They can be added to the master codeception.yml file that should be in the root of

your project.

1 modules:

2 config:

3 Db:

4 dsn: 'mysql:host=localhost;dbname=TEST_DB_NAME'

5 user: 'USERNAME'

6 password: 'PASSWORD'

7 dump: app/tests/_data/dump.sql

But, that’s it; you now have a test database ready to go!

Let’s migrate and seed this new users table.

1 php artisan migrate --seed --env="testing"

2 Migrated: 2013_05_19_151342_create_users_table

3 Database seeded!

At this point, we can authenticate the user within SessionsController.

1 // app/controllers/SessionsController

2 public function store()

3 {

4 $creds = [

5 'email' => Input::get('email'),

6 'password' => Input::get('password')

7 ];

9 if (Auth::attempt($creds)) return Redirect::to('admin');

10 }

Run the tests again, and we get green!

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 232

Invalid Credentials

I’d like to write one more test, though. Let’s make sure that, if incorrect credentials are specified,

then the login page is reloaded, along with an Invalid Credentials error message.

1 // app/tests/acceptance/LoginCest.php

3 public function loginWithInvalidCredentials(WebGuy $I)

4 {

5 $I->amOnPage('/login');

6 $I->click('Login');

8 $I->seeCurrentUrlEquals('/login');

9 $I->see('Invalid Credentials', '.flash');

10 }

Run the tests:

1 1) LoginCest.loginWithInvalidCredentials

2 Guy couldn't see current url equals "/login": Failed asserting that two str\

3 ings are equal.

4 --- Expected

5 +++ Actual

6 @@ @@

7 -'/login'

8 +'/sessions'

10 Scenario Steps:

11 3. I see current url equals "/login" <-- RED

12 2. I click "Login"

13 1. I am on page "/login"

This is one of those situations where we don’t know exactly what the next step is. That’s the

downside to writing acceptance tests. We’ve proven that this piece of functionality doesn’t work,

but we don’t have enough tests to determine precisely what to do next. Now, if we had also written

some unit and functional tests, this would never be the case. Nonetheless, we’ll continue on.

Let’s update the controller’s store method to redirect back to the login page if authentication fails.

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 233

1 // app/controllers/SessionsController.php

3 public function store()

4 {

5 $creds = [

6 'email' => Input::get('email'),

7 'password' => Input::get('password')

8 ];

10 if (Auth::attempt($creds)) return Redirect::to('admin');

12 return Redirect::to('login')->withInput();

13 }

The final step is to ensure that the Invalid Credentials message displays, as the latest running of the

tests show:

1 Scenario Steps:

2 4. I see "Invalid Credentials",".flash" <-- RED

3 3. I see current url equals "/login"

4 2. I click "Login"

5 1. I am on page "/login"

In Laravel, we can flash messages when redirecting by passing a session key and value pair to the

with method.

1 return Redirect::to('login')

2 ->withInput()

3 ->with('message', 'Invalid Credentials');

To capture this value from the view, we only need to verify whether the session object has a message

key, and, if so, display it within a <div>.

1 @if (Session::has('message'))

2 <div class="flash">

3 {{ Session::get('message') }}

4 </div>

5 @endif

And that should do it! If working along, manually check your work in the browser to prove that the

Chapter 15: Authentication With Codeception Exercise 234

Tip: Once you embrace a consistent TDD cycle, you’ll find that, most of the time, your

browser will remain closed.

Summary

Hopefully, if you worked along with this chapter, you found that, though helpful, we require more

fine-grained tests to handle the situations when a scenario step fails without providing enough

details. In the following chapter, we’ll toy around with functional testing in Codeception, which

offers mostly the same API, while offering a few bonuses.

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in

Codeception

In Codeception, the process of writing functional tests is nearly identical to acceptance testing, which

we discussed in the previous chapter. There are only two core differences:

• Functional tests don’t require a server to execute. This can provide a performance boost.

Instead, requests and responses will be emulated.

• Functional tests provide better output for debugging. Rather than noting that a scenario step

failed, functional tests will display the exception message directly in the console.

The Laravel4 Module

Codeception is extensible in the form of modules. While acceptance tests are framework-agnostic

(meaning you could even use Codeception to write tests for a .NET application), the same is not true

for your functional tests. Luckily, Codeception provides a Laravel4 module that can hook into our

favorite framework.

The Laravel4 module may be enabled by editing functional.suite.yml. By default, this file will

include the Filesystem and TestHelper modules. Let’s extend it to support both Laravel4 and Db.

1 class_name: TestGuy

2 modules:

3 enabled: [Filesystem, TestHelper, Laravel4, Db]

The DB Module

The DB module requires a bit of setup. First, edit the global configuration file - codeception.yml

- and provide your database credentials within the DB configuration block. Don’t forget to update

the DSN, username, and password with your credentials.

235

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception 236

1 modules:

2 config:

3 Db:

4 dsn: 'mysql:host=localhost;dbname=DB_NAME'

5 user: 'USERNAME'

6 password: 'PASSWORD'

7 dump: app/tests/_data/dump.sql

The DB module’s core responsibility is to clean up the database after each test. This way, we can

ensure that each test is working with the same data set. To populate your database, Codeception

requires a raw SQL dump. You can either tackle this directly from a GUI, like Sequel Pro (via

an “Export” command), or most systems should have a mysqldump executable available from the

command line. This SQL dump should be placed within app/tests/_data/dump.sql. Using the

previously mentioned executable, we can dump our database to this location in a single command:

1 mysqldump --opt --user="USERNAME" --password="PASSWORD" DBNAME > app/tests/\

2 _data/dump.sql

As always, replace values in all caps with your own credentials.

Updating TestGuy

The final step is to re-build the TestGuy class. Any time that you add or remove a module from

a suite, re-run the build command. The reason why is because files, like TestGuy, CodeGuy, and

WebGuy are dynamically generated, based upon the modules that you’ve included.

1 codecept build

2 /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/codecept-chapter/app/tests/acceptance/WebGuy.php gen\

3 erated successfully. 39 methods added

4 /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/codecept-chapter/app/tests/functional/TestGuy.php ge\

5 nerated successfully. 52 methods added

6 /Users/Jeffrey/Desktop/codecept-chapter/app/tests/unit/CodeGuy.php generate\

7 d successfully. 0 methods added

Registering a User

In the previous chapter, we wrote an acceptance test for logging a user in. This time, using functional

testing, let’s write a test for registering a new user. This test should walk through the process of

visiting the /register page, filling out the form, and then verifying whether the new user was

saved to the database.

As always, we begin by generating a new test - this time, for the functional suite.

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception 237

1 codecept generate:cept functional Registration

Next, let’s write the spec for registering a user.

1 <?php // app/tests/functional/RegistrationCept.php

3 $I = new TestGuy($scenario);

4 $I->wantTo('register for a new account');

5 $I->lookForwardTo('be a member');

7 $I->amOnPage('/register');

8 $I->see('Register', 'h1');

9 $I->fillField('Email:', 'joe@sample.com');

10 $I->fillField('Password:', '1234');

11 $I->click('Register Now');

13 $I->seeCurrentUrlEquals('/login');

14 $I->see('You may now sign in!', '.flash');

15 $I->seeInDatabase('users', ['email' => 'joe@sample.com']);

Did you notice that last method, seeInDatabase? This references some of the sugar that the Db

module provided. With a single line of code, we can peak into the database, and ensure that a new

record was, in fact, added to the users table.

Don’t forget that, for each test, the database will be refreshed.

This time, if we run the tests, rather than Codeception failing on a scenario step without providing

any feedback, we’ll see that an exception was thrown, along with the stack trace.

1 1) Couldn't register for a new account in RegistrationCept.php

2 Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Exception\NotFoundHttpException:

It’s squawking because the /register route doesn’t exist.

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception 238

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::get('register', function()

4 {

5 return View::make('register');

6 });

Next, let’s move ahead and create the registration form.

1 <!doctype html>

2 <html>

3 <head>

4 <meta charset=utf-8>

5 <title>Register</title>

6 </head>

8 <body>

9 <h1>Register</h1>

11 {{ Form::open() }}

12 {{ Form::label('email', 'Email:') }}

13 {{ Form::text('email') }}

15 {{ Form::label('password', 'Password:') }}

16 {{ Form::text('password') }}

18 {{ Form::submit('Register Now') }}

19 {{ Form::close() }}

20 </body>

21 </html>

Great! According to the tests, the only remaining thing to do is respond to the POST request, and

then create the user. Forgive me for ignoring validation; let’s keep things barebones for the sake of

focusing as much as possible on Codeception.

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception 239

1 // app/routes.php

3 Route::post('register', function()

4 {

5 $user = new User;

6 $user->email = Input::get('email');

7 $user->password = Input::get('password');

8 $user->save();

10 return Redirect::to('login')

11 ->with('message', 'You may now sign in!');

12 });

Finally, we’ll display the flash message to the user, and should then be done!

1 <body>

2 <h1>Register</h1>

4 @if (Session::has('message'))

5 <div class="flash">

6 {{ Session::get('message') }}

7 </div>

8 @endif

10 {{ Form::open() }}

11 {{ Form::label('email', 'Email:') }}

12 {{ Form::text('email') }}

14 {{ Form::label('password', 'Password:') }}

15 {{ Form::text('password') }}

17 {{ Form::submit('Register Now') }}

18 {{ Form::close() }}

19 </body>

Back to green. Did you notice that we implemented this functionality without ever touching a

browser? And the best part is that, for the life of this application, we will have a test that verifies

whether or not the registration process works as we expect it to.

Chapter 16: Functional Testing in Codeception 240

Back to green

Summary

The fact that this chapter is so short is a testament to how easy Codeception is to use. Tools that are

built well should not require hundreds of pages of documentation. It’s really quite simple: define

how the user wishes to interact with their application using a readable DSL, and then write the

necessary code (while still leveraging traditional unit tests) to make it pass.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration

With Travis CI

Travis⁴⁷ is a popular open-source hosted continuous integration service that offers support for a

number of languages (originally beginning with Ruby), including PHP. Wait, what, huh? Continuous

integration?

Definition: Popularized by Kent Beck and Martin Fowler, and a core Extreme Program-

ming development methodology, continuous integration is the process of frequently

(even multiple times a day) merging (or integrating) your local source revisions in an

attempt to avoid what we refer to as integration hell. Each integration is then verified

by an automated build server, like Travis or Jenkins⁴⁸. This cycle can help to prevent

compatibility issues.

Continuous integration assumes that you and your team leverage a version control system, like

Git⁴⁹. Even ten years ago, terms like source control were scary things. These days, though, it’s a

basic part of our development process. So chances are, even if you don’t realize it, you may already

be practicing continuous integration (mostly).

1. Check out a copy of the source.

2. Create a branch and perform the bug fix or addition.

3. Hours (not days or weeks) later, when the tests are green, fetch and merge the latest changes.

4. If no collisions occur (meaning the tests still pass), push your changes to GitHub. To repeat,

only integrate when the build is successful.

5. Upon receipt, a CI server will automatically build the project again (in an environment

that’s as close to production as possible) and trigger all of the tests. If the tests pass, you’ve

successfully integrated.

6. Rinse and repeat.

Item number five above might be the only step (an important one) that you don’t follow in your

current workflow. Because there is always the possibility that you didn’t update your local copy

correctly, it’s important to have a central continuous integration server that executes automatically.

⁴⁷http://travis-ci.org

⁴⁸http://jenkins-ci.org/

⁴⁹http://git-scm.com/

241

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 242

Travis CI is one such example; think of it is as the teacher who checks over your work. The ultimate

goal is to have a system for detecting errors within a matter of hours, rather than days or weeks.

Git, GitHub, PHPUnit (with tests), and Travis provide the perfect recipe for integrating (execuse the

pun) CI into your team’s daily workflow.

“Any individual developer’s work is only a few hours away from a shared project state

and can be integrated back into that state in minutes. Any integration errors are found

rapidly and can be fixed rapidly.” - Martin Fowler⁵⁰

One advantage to this rapid integration is that it encourages developers to break their work into

small, manageable chunks.

Though it may seem that continuous integration is primarily for development teams, this isn’t the

case. Even as a solo developer, services like Travis will prove to be quite helpful.

Hello, Travis

Imagine that you have a popular GitHub repository that others frequently contribute to. Next,

imagine if, for each pull request, a service, like Travis, would notify you if their committed changes

have broken your code. Pretty neat, right? But what if you want to test the package against multiple

version of PHP (5.4, 5.3, etc.)? No problem: add a few characters to your configuration file and you’re

done.

“Our CI environment provides multiple runtimes (e.g. Node.js or PHP versions), data

stores and so on. Because of this, hosting your project on travis-ci.org means you can

effortlessly test your library or applications against multiple runtimes and data stores

without even having all of them installed locally.” - travis-ci.org⁵¹

If you’re worried that I’ve yet again introduced another tool to learn (when will it end), you’ll

be happy to know that Travis is a cinch to use: connect to GitHub, register a service hook, add a

configuration file, and you’re done! Three simple steps.

1. Connect

To get started, the first step is to connect your GitHub account to Travis.

⁵⁰http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html

⁵¹http://about.travis-ci.org/docs/user/getting-started/

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 243

Connect Travis to GitHub

2. Register Hooks

Next, view your profile, and enable one of your GitHub packages that includes tests (you can

create a dummy project for testing purposes). In the screenshot below, I’m activating tests for my

“Test Helpers” package that we reviewed in the testing models chapter. When checked, Travis will

automatically register the necessary service hook with GitHub.

Tip: To manually register service hooks (such as for Packagist) in GitHub, visit the

Settings page for one of your repositories, click Service Hooks, and scroll down to the

applicable service.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 244

3. Configure

As the final step, you have to tell Travis a bit about your project. How can it run your tests, if it

doesn’t know which language, version, and tools it was built with? Further, some applications may

require a test database, setup work, and more. All of this can be declared within a travis.yml file,

placed in the root of your application.

Did You Know: When creating a package with Laravel’s workbench, the framework

will automatically generate a travis.yml file.

Here’s the absolute essentials for a basic PHP project that is dependent upon Composer.

1 language: php

3 php:

4 - 5.4

5 - 5.3

7 before_script:

8 - curl -s http://getcomposer.org/installer | php

9 - php composer.phar install --dev

11 script: phpunit

This file makes a handful of declarations:

1. Which language are we working with?

2. Which versions of that language must this project be tested against?

3. Anything we need to do before running the tests?

4. Which test script should be used?

Overall, it’s fairly simplistic! Remember: this is a Yaml file, so pay close attention to your indentation.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 245

Configuring Travis

Upon adding this new file, commit your changes and push them to GitHub. Once GitHub registers

the commit, it will fire off a notification to Travis (your service hooks at work), which, in turn, will

read the project’s configuration file and execute its tests. Shortly after, you’ll receive an email with

the results. Here’s an example of one I received today, notifying me that the tests all passed.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 246

Travis will email you the results of the latest integration.

There will be plenty of times, though, when green isn’t the color of the day. When the tests invariably

fail, Travis will provide a stack trace, detailing the problem.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 247

Error reports in Travis

Build Configuration

As I noted earlier, Travis is a fairly straight-forward tool. That’s what makes it so useful. Having said

that, there will certainly be projects that require extended configuration (within your travis.yml

file). This section will outline various common options.

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 248

Absolute Basics

If nothing else, Travis needs to know the language and version of the project.

1 language: php

2 php:

3 - 5.4

With these three lines alone, Travis will test your project with PHPUnit, against PHP version 5.4.

To, say, test against version 5.2 as well, simply add one line:

1 language: php

2 php:

3 - 5.4

4 - 5.2

Bootstrapping

When running PHPUnit, you will often want to register a bootstrap file, such as Composer’s

vendor/autoload.php. This sort of configuration should be placed, per usual, within your phpunit.xml

file. Remember: Laravel, too, will generate this file for you.

Each time that Travis runs your repo’s tests, it will build an environment, based upon the

configuration file. As such, you must explicitly declare all dependencies or commands that should

be executed before running the test script.

The following snippet will download Composer and install all dependencies that are declared within

your project’s composer.json file.

1 before_script:

2 - curl -s http://getcomposer.org/installer | php

3 - php composer.phar install --dev

Maybe you have a dedicated shell script that will install or prepare various dependencies. That, too,

should be added to before_script.

1 before_script:

2 - ./bin/setup-dependencies.sh

Notice that these are just simple commands. Anything that you would write in the Terminal may

be used here. Perhaps you need to execute an Artisan command first:

Chapter 17: Continuous Integration With Travis CI 249

1 before_script:

2 - curl -s http://getcomposer.org/installer | php

3 - php composer.phar install --dev

4 - php artisan migrate --seed

Notifications

By default, Travis will send email notifications for each commit to the commit author and repository

owner. However, this can be modified if necessary.

Turn Off Notifications

1 notifications:

2 email: false

Set Recipients

1 notifications:

2 email:

3 - devmanager@example.com

4 - logs@example.com

5 - steve-micromanager@example.com

IRC

Travis can even update your team’s IRC channel with each commit. Let’s say that Taylor wanted

Travis to send through the results of each commit to Laravel’s IRC channel. To his configuration

file, he could add:

1 notifications:

2 irc:

3 - "chat.freenode.net#laravel"

Summary

Continuous integration is not Laravel specific. Nonetheless, it’s a pattern that all modern develop-

ment teams follow in 2013. Are you?

Once again, it’s an unfortunate truth that scary jargon like this can deter developers. Software

development is confusing enough; do we really need to introduce this much confusing terminology?

That said, please don’t let two words keep you from sleeping better at night. Take a few hours, re-

read this chapter, and integrate Travis CI into your development process today.

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living

Document)

Wow - you made it this far? Well, I’m sure you have questions. In fact, I guarantee it! Think of this

chapter as a living document that will frequently be updated, as I find myself responding to the same

questions on Twitter, email, or GitHub. Depending on when you made your purchase, this chapter

will either be sparse, or massive!

1. How Do I Test Global Functions?

As a basic rule of thumb, make every effort to avoid wrecklessly using global functions within your

code. If you do, though, you have two options to allow for testability.

Mock It

Let’s imagine that a piece of your code uses the native file_get_contents() function. Rather than

grouping it directly within a particular method, instead, extract it to its own method that you can

then mock.

Consider this dummy method that returns the contents of a file.

1 public function getContents($file)

2 {

3 return "The content of the given file is: " . file_get_contents($file);

4 }

Unfortunately, this function isn’t testable without a bit of trickery. Let’s fix that by extracting the

global function reference.

250

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) 251

1 public function getContents($file)

2 {

3 return "The contents of the given file is: " . $this->fetch($file);

4 }

6 public function fetch($file)

7 {

8 return file_get_contents($file);

9 }

Now that we have a wrapper for this function, getContents is a cinch to unit test.

1 class TheClassTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

3 public function testGetContents()

4 {

5 $mock = Mockery::mock('TheClass')->makePartial();

6 $mock->shouldReceive('fetch')

7 ->once()

8 ->with('foo')

9 ->andReturn('bar');

11 $sentence = $mock->getContents('foo');

13 $this->assertEquals('The contents of the given file is: bar', $sent\

14 ence);

15 }

17 }

The Namespacing Trick

A second solution is to use namespacing. To simplify things, this time, we’ll assume a collection of

functions within a namespace, App. Here’s an example:

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) 252

1 <?php namespace App\Helpers;

3 function showTime()

4 {

5 return time();

6 }

In its current state, triggering the showTime() function will, as expected, return a time stamp. As no

time() function exists in the current namespace, PHP will move up and assume that we’re referring

to the global version of time().

However, we can add a custom time() function that will override the default version. In effect, we’re

essentially create App\time().

1 <?php namespace App;

3 function time() { return 'foo'; }

5 function showTime()

6 {

7 return time();

8 }

With this modification, when calling showTime(), foo will be returned! Let’s use this in our test.

1 <?php namespace App\Helpers;

3 function time() { return 'foo'; }

5 class FunctionsTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {

6 public function testShowTime()

7 {

8 $this->assertEquals('foo', showTime());

9 }

10 }

Admittedly, this is a silly example. In fact, we’re not really testing anything! Always be careful of

that when mocking. But, hopefully, the basic principle has shown through.

If you cannot remove a global function but still need to test a particular method, first attempt to

create a wrapper for the function that can be mocked. As a fallback, use the namespacing trick.

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) 253

2. How Do I Create a SQL Dump for Codeception Tests?

We reviewed this in Chapter 16. The easiest way is to knock it out in a single command. For example,

to dump a database, called my-db into a file, app/tests/_data/dump.sql, from the command line,

run:

1 mysqldump --opt --user="USERNAME" --password="PASSWORD" my-db > app/tests/_\

2 data/dump.sql

If, for some reason, the mysqldump executable isn’t available to you, there are plenty of MySQL GUIs

that will do the job for you. If using the popular Sequel Pro⁵² app, choose File -> Export.

3. How Do I Test Protected Methods?

As a basic rule of thumb, you don’t test them. Opinions vary a bit on this issue, but, if you’d like my

personal advice, only test the public interface. Those protected methods will be tested indirectly in

the process. As such, if they don’t work properly, your public tests will fail.

4. Should I Test Getters and Setters?

Once again, and as with many things in the testing world, the community is a bit divided on this

one. I am of the opinion that they’re unnecessary in 90% of the cases. My rule is that, if there’s no

real logic going on, don’t waste time writing a test. However, if your setter manipulates or validates

the data in some way, throw a test in there to ensure that it works as expected.

“I get paid for code that works, not for tests, so my philosophy is to test as little as

possible to reach a given level of confidence (I suspect this level of confidence is high

compared to industry standards, but that could just be hubris). If I don’t typically make

a kind of mistake (like setting the wrong variables in a constructor), I don’t test for it.

[…] Ten or twenty years from now, we’ll likely have a more universal theory of which

tests to write, which tests not to write, and how to tell the difference. In the meantime,

experimentation seems in order.” - Kent Beck⁵³

5. Why Is PHPUnit Ignoring My Filters?

This is a common pitfall when functional testing. You test a route, expect the filter to be applied, but

find that, for some reason, it’s ignored. Luckily, the fix is an easy one.

⁵²http://www.sequelpro.com/

⁵³http://stackoverflow.com/questions/153234/how-deep-are-your-unit-tests/153565#153565

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) 254

1 public function testSomeRoute()

2 {

3 Route::enableFilters();

5 // $this->call('GET', 'api/v1/posts');

6 }

The Route class’ enableFilters method should activate these filters when testing.

6. Can I Mock a Method in the Class I’m Testing?

This will happen from time to time: you’re testing a class, but need to mock one method within that

class. Let’s review a bit of pseudo code for querying Twitter’s Search API.

1 <?php

3 class TwitterSearch {

4 protected static $url = 'http://search.twitter.com?q=';

5 protected $searchTerm;

7 public function __construct($searchTerm)

8 {

9 $this->searchTerm = $searchTerm;

10 }

12 public function compile() { /* ... */ }

14 public function fetch()

15 {

16 $url = urlencode($this->url . $this->searchTerm);

18 return file_get_contents($url);

19 }

20 }

When testing this class, you may decide to stub or mock that fetch method to prevent the code from

querying the Twitter API. With Mockery⁵⁴, this is a cinch; what you need is a partial mock.

⁵⁴https://github.com/padraic/mockery

Frequently Asked Questions (A Living Document) 255

Definition: A Partial Mocks is useful when you only need to mock a couple of the

methods on an object, leaving the remainder free to respond to calls as they normally

would.

Traditional Partial Mocks

The easiest way to mock that fetch method is to use a traditional partial mock, like so:

1 $mock = Mockery::mock('TwitterSearch[fetch]', ['laracon']);

2 $mock->shouldReceive('fetch')->once()->andReturn('stub');

This code will only mock the fetch method on the TwitterSearch class, leaving all others untouched

and free to behave as they normally would when instantiated. Because of this, it’s important to

pass in any constructor arguments in the form of an array, as the second argument. Now, when

the fetch() is triggered at some point in the object, foo will be returned, leaving the Twitter API

untouched.

Passive Partial Mocks

An alternative approach is to use what Mockery refers to as passive partial mocking.

1 $mock = Mockery::mock('TwitterSearch')->makePartial();

This declares that all methods on the mock object should defer to the original implementation, unless

an expectation is declared. So, to reiterate, the difference in this approach is that the presence of an

expectation will determine if that method is mocked, or defaults to the original implementation.

1 $mock = Mockery::mock('TwitterSearch')->makePartial();

2 $mock->fetch(); // calls real method

4 $mock = Mockery::mock('TwitterSearch')->makePartial();

5 $mock->shouldReceive('fetch')->once()->andReturn('stub');

6 $mock->fetch(); // returns foo

Though this won’t always be the case, if you find that you’re leveraging partial mocks too

frequently, this might be an indicator that your code should be refactored to better follow the

single responsibility priniciple. In the case of the above example, this certainly holds true. The fetch

method, which simply returns the contents of a file as a string, should be extracted to its own class.

Then, TwitterSearch could merely ask for that functionality upon instantiation, allowing for an

easy test double.

Goodbye

Well, I suppose this brings us to a close (cue the closing Saturday Night Live music). Hopefully, the

book lived up to what you expected, and, just maybe, you see testing in your future. You know what?

It better dang well be in your future. I worked hard on this book!

The truth, though, is that this is an incredibly complex topic that consists of multiple methodologies,

terminologies, frameworks, helpers, and more. No, it’s not a skill that you pick up in a few hours.

I’ve been at this for a long time, but still find myself learning new tricks and finding pitfalls every

day. I hope the same will be true for you!

Testimonials: If you enjoyed the book, and wouldn’t mind providing a short testimonial

that will be used in various promotional spots around the web, do so in this thread⁵⁵.

Even a sentence or two would be appreciated.

Wait a Second…

But wait - this isn’t the end! We’re just getting started. Laravel Testing Decoded wasn’t meant to

be released and forgotten. Rest assured that, not only will it continue to be updated to reflect new

testing functionality in the Laravel framework, but I also plan to release new chapters throughout

2013.

One of the first supplementary chapters will focus on building the purchase website

for this very book. This will provide plenty of real-world scenarios to dig further into

acceptance and unit testing.

So, with that in mind - and in closing - I’ll leave you with one question: what do you want to learn

next?⁵⁶

Stay in Touch

Let’s be friends! I’m incredibly active on Twitter, and, of course, spend much of my days making

⁵⁵https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Testing-Decoded/issues/1

⁵⁶https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Testing-Decoded/issues

256

Goodbye 257

Tuts+ Premium the best educational site on the web. Don’t be a stranger!

http://twitter.com/jeffrey_way

http://tutsplus.com